LAWS(RAJ)-2017-8-69

PAWAN KUMAR Vs. BABULAL

Decided On August 18, 2017
PAWAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
BABULAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant regular first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under section 96 CPC against the order dated 23.9.2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur, District Sikar ('the learned court below') in Civil Suit No. 126/2006, whereby the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the defendant/respondent No. 2-Subhash Chand Soni under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant ('the plaintiff' for short) filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.7.2016 against the defendants/respondents ('the defendants' for short) mentioning therein that the plaintiff and his father Babulal were having a shop on rent. Both-son and father were doing the business of a Tea and Water. Looking to advance old age of the father, the plaintiff alone was doing the said business on the shop. The erstwhile owner of the shop filed a suit for eviction against the father of the plaintiff and the eviction suit was decreed against his father upto Supreme Court. Finally compromise took place between the erstwhile owner and father of the plaintiff to sale the shop to the father. Since father of the plaintiff was not having money to purchase this shop, hence the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration amount to the erstwhile owner. Some payment was done by him and the payment was done after borrowing money from the creditors and on the request of the father and in the honour of the father, the plaintiff became ready for execution of sale deed of this shop in the name of his father and accordingly the sale deed of this shop was executed in the name of his father but the plaintiff remained in possession of this shop.

(3.) On 14.3.2002, father-Babulal executed a document in writing that this shop was purchased by his son Pawan Kumar from his own fund but the sale deed was executed in the name of Babulal. His son Pawan has all rights on this property. he is his legal representatives and his children would not claim any right in this property.