KAPUR CHAND SINGHAL Vs. SHRI GOPAL PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned 3 appeals are decided togather by this one judgment as common point of law and similar facts are involved in all the 3 appeals.

(2.) IT will suffice to state for the purpose of these appeals that the plaintiff-appellant instituted 3 suits in the court of Munsiff, Bharatpur in the year 1969, alleging therein that he had purchased a plot of land with some construction thereon for consideration of Rs. 10,000/- on 7. 5. 69 from Smt. Harbansh Kumari, who had purchased the same from the Custodian Department, wherein it was recorded as evacuee property. All these appeals arise out of this suit. IT was alleged that the respondents had encroached upon a part of this land and raised some constructions thereon. IT was further stated that Smt. Harbansh Kumari had & also given right to the plaintiff-appellant to take legal steps for obtaining possession of the land unlawfully encroached upon by the respondents. A notice was given to the respondents by the appellant through his advocate to remove the encroachment and ultimately the above suits were instituted in the trial court against the respondents.

(3.) THE respondents have come with a clear cut case in the written statements that they were bona-fide purchasers and therefore owners of the disputed land and that it was not an evacuee property. THErefore, the custodian had no right to sell the same to Harbansh Kumari who in turn could not sale the disputed land to the appellant. Thus, the appellant had no title whatsoever to the land in dispute, even the names from whom the respondents purchased the land, were given. If the respondents wanted to raise any inconsistant plea they could have raised the same in their written statement itself. THE plea regarding adverse possession and that the custodian department was not in possession of the disputed land was admittedly raised in the trial court, which was rejected after due consideration. Ex. 15 in appeal No. 15/80 clearly shows that the respondents had full knowledge of the fact that the land in dispute was evacuee properly and in possession of the custodian department, therefore, respondent Gopal Prasad wrote this application to the Managing Officer-cum-Assistant Custodian, Evacuee Properties, Alwar, praying that the disputed land may be sold to him and not to Harbansh Kumari. This shows that the respondents deliberately raised false pleas and produced fabricated evidence in the trial court to garb the land, which was rightly sold by the Custodian department to Harbansh Kumari, who sold the same to the appellant for consideration. This clearly shows that the application which has been filed as late as about 9 years from the date of the suits, cannot be termed to be a bona-fide application. THEre was nothing to stop the respondents from raising whatever inconsistant pleas they wanted to raise in the written statement. However, they preferred to do so after the suits filed by the appellant were decreed, evidently with a view to see that they are able to drag the litigation for as long as they could manage to do so by keeping the litigation pending as long as possible in various courts.