RAJ KUMARI Vs. DES RAJ AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the learned courts below whereby the suit as also the appeal came to be dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in joint possession of the land alongwith other co-sharers and out of the suit land, defendant asked the plaintiff to sell 5 kanals of land. Plaintiff on the request of the defendant agreed to sell 5 kanals of land out of his total land for sale consideration of Rs. 3,60,000/-. For this sale, defendant himself procured the revenue record from the concerned Patwari. However, on 27.2.2002 at place Dhan Chowk, on their way to Tehsil office for execution and registration of the sale deed, the defendant, in order to deceive the plaintiff, got him drunk. Thereafter, the defendant took the plaintiff to Tehsil office where the plaintiff under the belief that he is selling only 5 kanals of land signed the sale deed on 28.2.2002. The parties again visited the office of Sub- Registrar, Jawali for the registration of sale deed. The Sub-Registrar due to rush of work made no inquiry as to the extent of the land sold as also with regard to the sale consideration and registered the sale deed in hurried manner. Only symbolic possession of 5 kanals of land was delivered to the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff received summons for partition proceedings initiated by the defendant from the office of Tehsildar on the basis of which he came to know that the defendant by way of deceit had got executed and registered the sale deed of land measuring 00-89-56 Hms instead of 5 kanals. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed dated 27.2.2002 was result of fraud and, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff and the consequent mutation No. 288 dated 8.7.2002 attested on the basis of said sale deed was also illegal, null and void. It was further alleged that only part of the sale consideration of Rs. 70,000/- was paid to the plaintiff, whereas the remaining amount was still due and payable by the defendant. However, since now the defendant was threatening to transfer the suit land, therefore, the instant suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 27.2.2002 bearing sale deed No. 138 is illegal, null and void. The plaintiff also prayed for consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from alienating or transferring the suit land. In the alternative, he prayed for possession of the suit land.