JUDGMENT - PATEL J.N., J.:---Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. On 10-12-1983, when this appeal came to be admitted, this Court formulated substantial points of law as 1 to 4 out of the grounds of objection, stated in the appeal memo. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court the only substantial question of law which is required to be decided in this appeal is "as to whether the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 8-6-1966 having purchased field Survey No. 187/1, have also purchased 4 Mango trees standing thereon, from the original defendant Girdharilal".

3. The indisputable facts of the case are that the plaintiff purchased the field Survey No. 187/1under the sale deed dated 8-6-1966 for a consideration of Rs. 2500.00. A sale deed came to be executed by the parties, after it was prepared by the petition writer who is the scribe of the sale deed. The controversy relates to the recital in the sale deed in so far as the mango trees are concerned. According to the plaintiff, he was purchased the suit field along with 4 mango trees standing thereon. Whereas it is the case of the defendant, that he has not sold the mango trees to the plaintiff.

4. There is no dispute as regards the fact that the sale deed (Exhibit 27) was duly executed by the defendant-Girdharilal and it was got registered on the very same date i.e. on 8-6-1966. The whole controversy revolves around the recital in the sale deed Exhibit 27. It is the case of the parties to the suit, that when the sale deed was scribed by the petition writer, the plaintiff (purchaser) objected to the recital "---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------" The said portion in the sale deed is marked as portion "A". This part of the recital came to be deleted at the insistance of the plaintiff, that he has agreed to purchase the suit field along with the mango trees, and therefore it was objected by him, because of which the recital portion marked "A" came to be deleted and was initialed. The main controversy is in respect of the recital marked as portion "B" in the sale deed (Exhibit 27) which reads as "----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"

This according to the plaintiff is an interpolation and was never agreed upon by him. Whereas it is the contention of the defendant that on deletion of the recital portion marked "A", it is with the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff that the recital portion marked "B" came to be added, and once the plaintiff has accepted the sale deed with necessary amendment i.e. the deletion of the portion marked "A" and addition of portion marked "B", therefore the plaintiff now cannot claim to have purchased the mango trees and that trees were purchased by him along with the suit field described in para No. 1 of the plaint, and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The trial Court therefore dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for claiming declaration and injunction as a consequence of this the ancillary relief of damages and so on did not survived.

5. The plaintiff aggrieved by this judgment and decree dated 30-11-1970 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akot in Regular Civil Suit No. 145 of 1967, preferred an appeal before the District Judge, which came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 29/1971, and by judgment and order dated 18-3-1986, the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff have proved that they became the owners of the mango trees under sale deed Exhibit 27, and that the portion marked "B" in the sale deed (Exhibit 27) has been fraudulently inserted by the defendant without their knowledge, by interpolating the words therein, and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that they have purchased the suit field along with the mango trees, but rejected the claim of the plaintiff for damages. Now it was defendants turn to prefer this second a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document