JUDGMENT :

Rashid Ali Dar, J.

1. This Civil First Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree (dated 16.07.2011) passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam in File No. 03/N (for short impugned judgment and decree) in case titled "Noor-ud-Din Mattoo v. Haji Mohammad Shaban Ganai and Others."

2. A brief account of facts and grounds, in which the appeal is stated to have filed is:

(i) That by virtue of a sale deed executed on 28.11.2006 and registered on 25.01.2007, the appellant purchased a piece of land measuring 02 kanals covered by survey Nos. 361/124 situate at Baghat Kanipora, Tehsil Chadura, from respondent No. 3. Before executing sale deed, the appellant obtained extracts of Jamabandi and Girdawari from the Patwari concerned on 31.10.2006, which indicated that the aforesaid land had been purchased by respondent No. 3 from respondent No. 4 and a mutation No. III had also been attested by the revenue officials, on the basis of the said sale deed, in favour of respondent No. 3. It was, however, nowhere mentioned in the revenue extracts aforesaid, issued by the Patwari concerned and attested by Tehsildar Chadura on 31.10.2006 that the land was either subject matter of any site or else there was any kind of proceedings going on in respect of the said land before any Court of law. A copy of sale deed, revenue extracts of Jamabandi and Girdawari and also a copy of Aksi Shajra Kashtiward of land issued by Patwari concerned on 31.10.2006, along with the site plan prepared by Amin Adalat are annexed with the appeal (as Annexures A, B, C, D & E).

(ii) That after the execution of the sale deed dated 28.11.2006, the appellant also got a mutation attested in respect of the aforesaid land from the concerned revenue officials under No. 374, "in his name, which is also reflected on the first page of the sale deed, annexed with the petition (as annexure A).

(iii) That ever since from the date of execution and registration of the sale deed and attestation of mutation No. 374, the appellant has been in possession of the land and no one has ever caused any kind of interference with his possession over the said land, in any manner whatsoever. The land has not been fenced by the appellant as yet, but for purpose of identification, angle iron poles have been put by him on all the four sides of the land, which fully indicate its identification and demarcation.

(iv) That it was, however, on 24.06.2008 that the appellant was informed by the Patwari concerned that the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam, has passed a decree in a case instituted by respondents 1 and 2 against respondents 3 and 4 in the said Court, in respect of the land of the appellant and that the Nazir of the Court has come on spot to give possession thereof to the respondents 1 and 2. The appellant immediately rushed to the spot and found that the Nazir had left the place, because the respondent No. 3 had not come on spot. The appellant thereafter went to the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam, and after making necessary enquiries, found that a suit for enforcement of Right of Prior Purchase had been filed by the respondents 1 and 2 against respondents 3 and 4 in the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Budgam on 05.04.2004, in which they had alleged that the respondent No. 4 had sold a parcel of land measuring 2 kanals covered by survey Nos. 361/124 to the respondent No. 3 by virtue of a sale deed executed on 21.05.2005 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- and the said sale deed which was registered by the Sub-Registrar on 28.05.2005 should be cancelled because respondents 1 and 2, who are co-shares of the respondent No. 4, had executed the sale deed at their back.

(v) That it appears that an Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 3 in the Court on 30.11.2005 and had prayed for adjournment for filing power of attorney and written statement. On 10.12.2005, he again sought time for filing written