The intention of the parties to transfer ownership, as reflected in the sale deed, and the passing of title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgement and decree dated 7.6.1996 passed in Civil Appeal No.39-D/95, titled as Amar Chand vs. Madan Lal, dismissing the appellant’s appeal assailing the judgment and decree dated 23rd September, 1995 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, in Civil Suit No. 198/91 titled as Madan Lal v. Amar Chand decreeing the plaintiff’s suit.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the appellant herein is referred to as ‘the defendant’ and the respondent herein is referred to as ‘the plaintiff’.

3. Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No. 198/91, titled Madan Lal vs. Amar Chand before the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Dharamshala seeking declaration that the plaintiff is in possession of the land comprised in Khata No. 47 min, Khatoni No.94 min, Khasra No.321, measuring 0-21-98 hecs. (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit land’) as incorporated in Jamabandi for the year 1988-89 situated in Mohal Tang, Mauza Narwana, Tehsil Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. and that the sale deed dated 11.10.1991 obtained by the defendant from the plaintiff with respect to the aforesaid land is a result of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and without any consideration. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit premises was also prayed for. It was alleged that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 29,000/- and at the time of the execution of the sale deed, on the asking of the defendant a clause was incorporated that an amount of Rs.24,000/- stood already received by the plaintiff whereas actually the same was to be paid by the defendant at his residence after the execution of the sale deed. In good faith he believed the story and agreed to execute the sale deed. The said amount was never paid by the defendant thus rendering the sale deed to be void.

4. The defendant resisted the suit to be false. On merits, it was so stated that the plaintiff offered the land for sale and the land was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs.29,000/-; out of which Rs.24,000/- was paid before the execution of the sale deed and the remaining amount of Rs.5000/- was to be paid at the time of attestation of mutation in the revenue record. The defendant was put in possession and without the relief of possession the suit was not maintainable.

5. The trial Court framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land? OPP.

2. Whether the sale deed dated 11.10.1991 is the result of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation and without any consideration, if so, its effect? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is not correctly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct? OPD.

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? OPP.

7. Relief.

6. In support of its case the plaintiff examined four witnesses; namely, S/Shri Madan Lal (PW-1), Surender Sharotri (PW-2), Angat Ram (PW-3) and Saran Dass (PW-4) and to prove its case, the defendant examined six witnesses, namely, S/Shri Amar Chand (DW-1), Farman Chand (DW-2), Prem Chand (DW-3), Dharam Chand (DW-4) and Gian Chand (DW-5) and Amar Nath (DW-6).

7. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that through the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, it was proved that the defendant in fact had promised the plaintiff to pay the sale consideration after execution of the sale deed, later at his residence, which was subsequently refused by the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.9.1995 and the sale deed executed on 11th October, 1991 was held to be void and not binding upon the plaintiff.

8. The defendant assailed the said jugement and decree in an appeal before the District Judge, Kangra, Dharamshala and relying up