BHORYA LAL Vs. LAL CHAND & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was the defendant No.1 in the suit, has filed the present appeal under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 13/11/2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bayana(Bharatpur) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Court') in Civil Regular Appeal No.8 of 1992, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27/3/1992 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bayana(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.68 of 1982.

(2.) The facts in nutshell giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2- original plaintiffs had filed the suit, seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 5/7/1982, registered on 19/7/1982, executed by the respondent No.3 in favour of the present appellant and one Govind Prasad (since deceased, has been deleted from the cause title). As per the case of the respondents/plaintiffs, they were recorded khatedar tenants of the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.111 admeasuring 1 bigha 7 biswa situated at Village Singhada, Tehsil Bayana, in which there was a well and some kham rooms. It was further case of the plaintiffs that on the southern side of the said khasra No.111, there was an agricultural land bearing Khasra No.108/1 out of which the land admeasuring 14 biswa was acquired by the government for extension of the road, and the said acquired land was renumbered as Khasra No108/2. According to the respondents/plaintiffs , the defendant No.3 Ramesh Chand had executed a sale deed on 5/7/1982 in favour of the defendant No.1 Bhorya Lal, and the defendant No.2 Govind Prasad in respect of the land bearing Khasra No.108/2 and khasra No.111, though the defendant No.3 was not the owner of the said land. Hence, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the appellant as well as the respondent No.3 along with Govind Prasad, who were the defendants in the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint, and further contending inter-alia that the plaintiff No.1, who happened to be an ILR-Girdawar posted in the Revenue Department had misused his position and changed the trace map showing wrong position of land bearing khasra No.108/2,. According to the said defendants, there was no khasra No.108/2 towards the southern side of the land bearing Khasra No.111. It was also denied that the land sold by the defendant No.3 was part of land bearing Khasra No.111 or khasra No.108/2. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 27/3/1992, whereby the Trial Court set aside the sale deed in question and directed the defendants to hand over the possession of the disputed land as shown in the plaint. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant-defendant No.1 had preferred the appeal before the Appellate Court, which was dismissed.

(3.) It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. L.L. Gupta, for the appellant that both the Courts below had misappreciated the evidence on record and had committed an error in holding that the appellant did not have any right to sell the lands in question to the respondent No.3. He further submitted that the respondent No.1 being a revenue officer had misused his position and had wrongly shown the location of the khasra No.108/1, in the trace map. However, the learned counsel Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma for the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.2 has supported the findings given by the Courts below and urged to dismiss the appeal.