The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs was valid, and the entries in the revenue record did not confer title. The court also found that fraud had been played upon the plaintiffs by the defendants.

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

Plaintiffs, in the trial Court, are in second appeal as they are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.8.2001, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, in Civil Appeal No.49 of 2001, whereby the judgment and decree dated 16.1.2001, passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu in Civil Suit No.168 of 1993 has been affirmed.

2. The subject matter of dispute is the land entered in Khasra No.1048, Khata Khatauni No.196/230, measuring 3-3 bighas, situate in Phati Kalwari, Kothi Palach, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, of which, as per copy of Jamabandi for the year 1965-66 Ext.PX, Devta Lakshmi Narayan was recorded as owner through its “Kardar” Atma Ram, whereas defendant No.1 Beli Ram and others in possession thereof in lieu of rendering services to the deity. Defendant No.2 and others had sold the entire suit land, i.e., 3 bighas 3 biswas to Saran Pat, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 20.3.1967 Ext.PW-2/A. Mutation No.644 was also attested and sanctioned in favour of said Shri Saran Pat on 17.5.1967 as is apparent from the entries below remarks column of the Jamabandi Ext.PX. Rapat Ext.PY also came to be entered to this effect in the Roznamacha Wakyati for the year 1966-67 of Patwar Circle Chehani, Tehsil Banjar. On the death of Saran Pat, mutation of inheritance of the suit land was not sanctioned and attested in the names of plaintiffs, his legal heirs, and the suit land in subsequent Jamabandis for the year 1990-91, Ext.P.3/Ext.DG, 1985-86 Ext.DE and Khasra Girdawari Ex.DH came to be recorded in the ownership and possession of Shri Beli Ram, defendant No.1 and others. The possession thereof allegedly remained initially with late Shri Saran Pat and after his death with the plaintiffs.

3. Defendant No.2 filed the suit against defendant No.1 for the recovery of Rs.10,000/-. The same was decreed exparte vide judgment and decree dated 28.6.1988, Ext.P.1 and P.2, respectively against defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 initiated execution proceedings and the suit land to the extent of 1/4th share was attached as well as ordered to be sold by the Court in an open auction to realize the suit amount. Defendant No.3 being the highest bidder, purchased 1/4th share of defendant No.1 in the suit land alongwith his other landed property in an open auction and sale certificate Ext.DA came to be issued in her favour by learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Kullu District at Kullu. Rapat Ext.DI to this effect came to be recorded in Roznamcha Wakyati for the year 1990-91.

4. The grouse of the plaintiffs, as disclosed from the plaint, is that defendant No.1 Beli Ram an intelligent and shrewd man taking advantage of the simplicity of Saran Pat, their father, in connivance with the revenue staff managed that the mutation of inheritance on the death of their father is not attested and sanctioned in their names and to the contrary got civil suit filed from defendant No.2, not opted to appear and contest the same deliberately and intentionally. Not only this, but later on got the suit land attached during the execution proceedings and put the same on auction. The plaintiffs, who on the death of their father occupied the suit land, were under the impression that they are owners thereof. The sale of the suit land in favour of defendant No.3, therefore, has been sought to be declared illegal, null and void and the result of fraud played upon the plaintiffs by defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs came to know about sale of the suit land to defendant No.3 in an open auction during the first week of September, 1993 when the said defendant herself disclosed to plaintiff No.2 that the suit land was purchased by her in an open auction and that sale certificate also stands issued in her favour by the Court on 19.12.1990, hence the suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants.

5. Defendant No.1, when put to notice, has admitted the plaintiffs’ claim in toto as set out in t