The plaintiff's failure to prove forgery and the inapplicability of relevant acts led to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this appeal, the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) has challenged the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2009 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No. 104/2004 (114/99) titled as Ishwar lal Vs. Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and others whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff had filed a suit against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) for cancellation of sale deed dated 01.02.1984 in which plaintiff stated that plaintiff is khatedar of 16 bighas of land situated in Khasra No. 1/268, Village Kalyanpura Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The plaintiff entered into an agreement for selling 12 bighas of land out of 16 bighas of land with Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and rest 4 bighas of land is in the possession of the plaintiff. Another suit between the plaintiff and Mitra Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (for short ‘the Samiti’) was said to be pending before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur in which the defendants had pleaded that they had purchased the plaintiff’s entire land vide sale deed dated 1.2.1984, whereas the plaintiff had not registered any sale deed in their favour. Defendant-Samiti had forged the documents to grab the disputed property. The plaintiff had never gone to the office of Sub-Registrar and not put his signature or his thumb impression on any paper. Rather someone was impersonated as plaintiff-Ishwar Lal. In the said sale deed, defendant-Samiti mentioned that an agreement to sell was entered on 16.8.1978 between the plaintiff and the defendant-samiti after payment of Rs. 101/- and possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant-Samiti. It was also stated that it was quite unbelievable the amount @ Rs. 20,000/- per bigha was to be paid within 6 years, and that too without any token money. As per the contention of the plaintiff, defendant- Samiti had not paid a single rupee towards the sale consideration and land got recorded in the name of the plaintiff in the revenue records. He had not given possession of the disputed land to the defendant-Samiti. So, plaintiff got the title of the land on account of adverse possession. Plaintiff also stated that in the year 1976 Village Kalyanpura was included in the urban area, so Urban Ceiling Act was applicable, so, land could not be transferred in the year 1984. So, the alleged sale deed dated 01.02.1984 was void ab initio. Plaintiff also mentioned that Jaipur Development Authority came into force in the year 1982, wherein land of Kalyanpura was included in Green Belt. So, disputed land could not be sold for residential purposes. Thus, alleged sale deed dated 01.02.1984 is null and void. Plaintiff also mentioned that he came to know about so called sale deed dated 01.02.1984 on 16.06.1999, so the sale deed dated 1.2.1984 be cancelled and defendants be restrained to create hurdle in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

3. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement and mentioned that plaintiff entered into agreement to sell dated 16.8.1978 with the defendant No. 1 and handed over possession of the disputed land and after receiving the full consideration sale deed was executed on 1.2.1984. Defedant also pleaded that defendant-Samiti vide its letter dated 3.2.1984 addressed to Tehsildar, Sanganer had requested to open the mutation of the land in the name of Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited in place of plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also filed an application before the Assistant Land Settlement Officer to enter the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record and after receiving the report from the Patwari he ordered on 9.8.1994 to enter the name of defendant No.1 in the revenue record. Plaintiff had also obtained a No Objection Certificate from the Income Tax Department regarding sale. Plaintiff put his thumb impressio