ANUP DUTTA Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally plaintiff Anup Dutta had filed a civil suit against defendant No.1 Mohinder Singh alias Mohan Inder Singh (now deceased), defendant No.2 Faiz Murtaza Ali and defendant No.3 Sayed Masoom Ahmed. During pendency of suit deceased defendant No.1 Mohinder Singh and defendant No.2 Faiz Murtaza Ali stand substituted through their legal heirs defendant No.1(a) to 1(e) and defendant No.2(a) to defendant No.2(c), respectively, who have taken different stands having adverse impact on claim of another/others. Hereinafter Mohinder Singh and Faiz Murtaza Ali have been referred defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, respectively.

(2.) Main suit has been filed for specific performance of agreement dated 3rd July, 2002 executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 with respect to land/property comprised in khata No.74, khatauni Nos.104 to 109, kitas- 43, measuring 40-76-73 hectares, situated in Muhal Gopalpur, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. and seeking further declaration to the effect that mutual settlement documents purported to be mutual settlement dated 24th July, 2002, agreement/compromise dated 25th July, 2002 are void and inoperative against the right of the plaintiff having been got executed from the plaintiff under coercion and undue influence and seeking further declaration that sale deeds No.1054 dated 19th September, 2003, 1104 dated 3rd October, 2003 and 77 dated 17th January, 2004, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. through Power of Attorney of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 Faiz Murtaza Ali are wrong, void and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff.

(3.) In the original written statement dated 28th August, 2005 filed on 20th September, 2005 by defendant No.1 to the plaint, passing of a decree as prayed by the plaintiff, was opposed on the ground that defendant No.1 had already transferred a portion of the suit land, measuring 11-39-82 hect., in favour of defendant No.2 by executing registered sale deeds referred in the plaint with further assertion that mutation in pursuance to those sale deeds also stood attested and defendant No.1 was not owner-in-possession of the entire suit property. It was further contended on behalf of defendant No.1 that plaintiff, being a very clever man and an instrument in the hand of local land mafia, had managed to procure different papers, signed by defendant No.1, through his (defendant No.1) one of the most trusted servants namely Nirmal Singh on the pretext that those papers were required to be sent to the counsel for use in the land deal entered between defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and had used those papers to execute the agreement to sell, which is basis of filing of present suit and plea taken by the plaintiff in the plaint was opposed. This written statement was signed, verified and supported by an affidavit of defendant No.1 itself. This written statement was signed on 28th August, 2005 and filed on 20th September, 2005.