KANA (DEAD) Vs. MANGAL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2013, passed by the Additional District Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur in civil suit No.144/2010 whereby the appellants-plaintiff's (hereinafter 'the plaintiffs') suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1995 to the extent of the plaintiffs' share in khasra Nos.439 & 441 at village Samarpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur and for permanent injunction has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that a suit for cancellation of a registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1995 was filed on 18.08.2008 stating that the original plaintiff Kana (since dead and now represented through LRs) had never sold his share in khasra Nos.439 & 441 in village Samarpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur to the respondent-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant'), but that the sale-deed dated 25.01.1995 had been got executed by playing fraud on the plaintiff. It was stated that the defendant had in fact purchased the undivided share of Bhagoti, widow of Nathu and her minor son Gopal as also Gaura, mother of the deceased Nathu, and the plaintiff had been only required to sign only as a witness on the aforesaid sale-deed but fraudulently made to sign as vendor of his share instead in the aforesaid khasras. It was averred that no consideration at all was paid for, for the purported sale of the plaintiff's share under the registered sale-deed of 25.01.1995, nor was the possession of the agricultural land standing in the name of plaintiff Kana ever handed over to the defendant. It was stated that the plaintiff never came to know of the fraudulent sale transaction under the purported registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1995 whereby his khatedari rights have been transferred to the defendant as the defendant had not got the requisite mutation done in the revenue records upto the filing of the suit on 18.08.2008. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the registered sale-deed 25.01.1995 be declared as null and void qua the extent of the plaintiff's khatedari in khasra Nos.439 & 441 and that the defendant be restraint by way of permanent injunction from interfering therewith and the plaintiff's continuous peaceful possession of the disputed land.

(3.) On service of the plaint, the defendant filed a written statement of complete denial. It was stated that the registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1995 had been lawfully and validly executed by the plaintiff Kana, consideration as recorded therein paid and possession obtained. It was submitted that in fact owing to an error in the registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1995 wherein the name of village had been wrongly recorded as Fatehpura, a rectification deed was duly registered (with reference to the registered sale-deed dated 25.01.1995) on 04.08.1998 whereby the correct name of the village was shown as Samarpura. It was stated that the defendant was the registered owner of the suit property having purchased it bona fide for valuable consideration in accordance with law on 25.01.1995 and was in possession thereof at all time thereafter. The learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties struck six issues of its consideration. They were as under :