(1.) The instant appeal is directed, by, the aggrieved plaintiff, against the verdict, of, dismissal, made, upon, Civil suit No. 3-2/48-99, hence, by the learned District Judge, Kullu. Through, the, impugned verdict, the learned trial Court, had, after returning findings adversarial, vis-vis, issue No. 1, and, appertaining, to, the plaintiff being, in, possession, of, the suit land, (a) and also, after his returning findings adversarial, to, the plaintiff, vis-vis, his claim, qua his becoming bonafide purchaser for value, and, for consideration vis-vis, the suit land, through, a registered deed of conveyance, made qua him by one, Kamlesh Kumari, co-defendant No. 2, (b) and, also after his returning findings against the defendant, vis-vis, his contention, qua his becoming not dis-possessed in pursuance, to, execution being made, vis-vis, the apt conclusive, and, binding verdict, made, upon RFA No. 355 of 1992, ( c) hence proceeded to decline, to, the plaintiffs, the, espoused decrees, for, declaration, and, also the alternative, thereto decree for, a recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,65,000/-. The afore returned findings hence adversarial, to, the plaintiff, rather becoming returned, and upon, the afore factum probandum, has caused agitation, in the plaintiff, and, hence has led him, to, institute, the, instant appeal, against the verdict of dismissal, pronounced upon, civil suit No. 3-02/48-99, by the learned trial Judge.
(2.) Even though, the execution of sale deed, borne in Ext. PW6/A, becomes proven, to be, validly executed, (i) however, the, valid bestowment(s), of, title, therethrough, upon the plaintiff, and, as derived from the vendor thereof, and, arrayed, extantly as, co-defendant No. 2, latter whereof, had derived title, un-controvertedly, during, the pendency of RFA No. 355 of 1992, from one Sanjeev Kumar Dogra, arrayed, hence in the instant suit, as co-defendant No. 3, rather becomes, the, ire adjudicatory contest interse the contesting litigants. However, upon, both the afore co-defendant No. 2 Kamlesh Kumari, and, also upon Sanjeev Dogra, becoming evidently un-arrayed, as litigants', either in the array of plaintiffs, or, in the array, of, defendants, in, the afore civil suit bearing No. 63/1983, (a) wherefrom RFA No. 355 of 1992 arose, hence would initially render both, the, afore Kamlesh Kumari, the vendor of the plaintiff, and, also Sanjeev Kumar, the, vendor of the afore Kamlesh Kumari, rather, to, not attract, upon, themselves, either the vitiatory effects, of, the doctrine, of, lis-pendens, (b) nor would de-faciliate them to espouse qua, the, apposite sale deed, becoming validated, on, the principle, of, ostensible ownership. Imperatively, also only, upon, the afore espousal becoming successful, may, likewise also empower the plaintiff, to, contend, that, the sale deed, borne in Ext. PW6/A, and, executed interse him, and, the co-defendant Kamlesh Kumari, also not becoming imbued, with, any stain of invalidity, (c) and, nor it attracting thereon(s), either, the vitiatory doctrine of lis-pendens, rather his becoming empowered, to, contend, qua infirm findings, becoming, adversially rendered, upon, the issue, appertaining, to his, becoming a bonafide purchaser, for, value vis-vis, the suit land.
(3.) In making the afore ascertainments, a perusal, of, the memo of parties, of, civil suit No. 63 of 1983, wherefrom RFA No. 355 of 1992 arose, and, during pendency whereof, co-defendant No. 2, acquired the title, vis-vis, the suit land, from one Sanjeev Dogra, and, thereafter, through Ext. PW6/A, hence the plaintiff, acquired title from co-defendant Kamlesh Kumari (a) rather unveils, qua Sanjeev Kumar Dogra, becoming therein arrayed as co-defendant No. 5, and, the latter becomes also arrayed, in, the instant suit, as codefendant No.