KESAR DEVI MAJOR Vs. GURBACHAN SINGH CHABDA MAJOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these second appeals have been preferred by defendant No.2 under Sec. 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 30/5/2019 deciding two first appeal Nos.30/2016 and 04/2017 by the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Beawar whereby and whereunder while affirming the judgment and decree dtd. 15/2/2013 passed in Civil Suit No.35/2001 (14/1998) by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.1, Beawar in relation to declaration of sale deed of appellant dtd. 19/9/1995 as null and void qua respondent-plaintiff, the appellate court held that the plaintiff is in possession of the plot in question being its registered owner and passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the present appellant-defendant No.2.

(2.) Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record.

(3.) The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit on 18/8/1998 alleging inter alia that the plot in question bearing plot No.24 (which was later on alleged to be converted in plot No.13) having an area of 250 square yards situated at Village Narsinghpura Tehsil, Beawar District Ajmer was purchased through registered sale deed dtd. 8/7/1988 from its owner namely, Shri Sohan Lal and the possession of the plot was also transferred to the plaintiff as stipulated in the sale deed. Thereafter, the seller-Sohan Lal has executed another sale deed dtd. 19/9/1995 in relation to the plot of plaintiff, in favour of defendant No.2 (appellant herein) namely, Smt. Kesar Devi hence the plaintiff claimed that since the seller-Sohan Lal had already transferred his ownership rights and possession of the plot in question to the plaintiff, the execution of subsequent sale deed is of no importance and such subsequent sale deed dtd. 19/9/1995 made in favour of defendant No.2 be declared as null and void qua the plaintiff and further the defendant No.2 be restrained, by way of permanent injunction, not to interrupt/create hindrance in use and occupation of the plot in question by the plaintiff. The seller-defendant No.1 submitted written statement mentioning that at the time of execution of sale deed dtd. 19/9/1995 in favour of appellant-defendant No.2, it was informed that the plot has already been sold to plaintiff through sale deed dtd. 8/7/1988 however, on persuasion of defendant No.2, the subsequent sale deed dtd. 19/9/1995 was executed in her favour without transfer of possession with an understanding that in case of dispute, the defendant No.2 (purchaser) would deal with the same. The defendant No.2 (appellant herein who is the contesting party in the present matter) submitted her written statement that the defendant has purchased the suit plot from defendant No.1 through registered sale deed dtd. 19/9/1995 and in pursuance thereof, in the revenue record, mutation has sanctioned in her name. She claims herself bonafide purchaser and in actual possession of plot in question and prayed that the suit deserves to be dismissed. The defendant though denied the sale deed of plaintiff dtd. 8/7/1988 however, never challenged the sale deed of plaintiff either by filing a counter claim or any independent suit.