ANANT RAM Vs. DEVI RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.7.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge(Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court) Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.18/2004, 108/2005, affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge ( Junior Division) Court No.2,Mandi, H.P., in Civil Suit No. 475/99/ 98, whereby suit for declaration and injunction filed by the present appellant-plaintiff under Sections 34 to 38 of the Specific Relief Act has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case as emerged from the record are that appellant(hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed suit for declaration and injunction against the respondent No.1 and proforma-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the defendant No.1 and proforma defendants) averring therein that the land comprised in khewat khatauni No.269/469, khasra Nos.1220 and 1201, kitas-2, measuring 4-13-14 bighas, situated in Mauja Kummi, Hadbast No.230, Illaqua Balh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, H.P.( hereinafter referred to as the suit land) is recorded in the joint ownership of the plaintiff, defendant and proforma-defendants. Plaintiff further alleged in the plaint that suit land was previously owned and possessed by one Sh. Chuhra and Mansa sons of Sh. Nag and they had agreed to sell the land in favour of the plaintiff for total consideration of Rs. 6000/-. Plaintiff further claimed that out of aforesaid amount, Rs. 5000/- was received by defendant as an earnest money of the sale consideration and remaining amount of Rs. 1000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed.

(3.) As per plaintiff, there was a written agreement executed between the plaintiff, Sh.Chuhra and Sh.Mansa Ram on 30.9.1980 and possession of entire suit land was handed over to him on that very day and since then he is in continuous possession of the suit land. Plaintiff also alleged that Mansa Ram in terms of the aforesaid agreement to sell, executed the sale deed in his favour, whereas Chuhra resiled from that agreement and sold the suit land of his share in favour of defendant No.1, namely Devi Ram. As per plaintiff, he never permitted defendant No.1 to enter into possession of the suit land. He also submitted that he and defendant are the residents of the same village and the suit land is also situated within the same village Kummi and is nearby to the house of the defendant and the defendant has full knowledge of the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as well as about the execution of the agreement to sell between the plaintiff, Sh. Mansha and Chuhra. Plaintiff further claimed that just to cause harassment, the defendant No.1 got sale deed executed of the share of Chura in the suit land in his favour vide registered sale deed on 15.6.1981, which is mere paper transaction because defendant is/was never put into possession on the share of Chuhra over the suit land.