The validity of sale deeds and the protection of bona fide purchasers under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act were central to the court's decision.

Vinod K.Sharma, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and case remanded back to the trial Court to record a finding on issue Nos. 2 to 6, 9 and 10.

2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for joint possession of 4/15th share i.e. 26 kanals 13 marlas out of land measuring 100 kanals 2 marlas as described in the head note of the plaintiff and according to the jamabandi for the year 1992-93 situated at village Amrik. The plaintiff claimed to be owner of 4/15 th share of suit land and claimed that defendant No. 1 was owner of 1/5 th share out of the suit land and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the owners of 4/6 th share each out of the suit land and further defendants have no concern or interest in the suit land. It was claimed that the plaintiff had gone abroad to Iraq and remained there for 5-6 years. The plaintiff claimed that he came to know about mutation No. 1074 regarding the sale by the plaintiff in favour of Tara Singh son of Dula Singh to the extent of half share and Sajjan Singh son of Inder Singh remaining half share. The mutation was claimed to be illegal, null and void on the plea that the plaintiff had not executed any sale-deed in favour of Tara Singh and Sajjan Singh. It was further pleaded that Virsa Singh plaintiff had not executed any power of attorney dated 8.6.1983 in favour of Chanan Singh son of Meghar Singh defendant No. 1 because the plaintiff was not in India and the power of attorney is the result of impersonation. The plaintiff claimed that he has not thumb marked on any power of attorney and therefore claimed that the sale-deed dated 20.6.1983 is illegal, null and void. It was further the case of the plaintiff that as the defendants had failed to admit the claim of the plaintiff the suit was being filed.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendant, whereas defendant No. 1 attorney of the plaintiff who is the father of the plaintiff chose not to appear and was proceeded exparte. The contesting defendant claimed that he was bona fide purchaser for consideration and therefore, protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further claimed that defendant No. 4 has become owner by way of adverse possession and further that the plaintiff was estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit which was not within limitation. The description of the defendants qua their names was also challenged. On merit it was claimed that Sakkattar Singh sold the land measuring 18 Kanals in favour of Gajjan Singh for a consideration of Rs. 27,000/-vide registered sale-deed dated 17.12.1981 and Gurbhej Singh also sold the land measuring 6 Kanals in favour of Gajjan Singh defendant for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/-vide registered sale-deed dated 24.1.1983. The plaintiff Virsa Singh sold land measuring 26 Kanals 13 Marlas through his general power of attorney Chanan Singh in favour of Gajjan Singh and Tara Singh son of Dula Singh for a consideration of Rs. 32,000/- vide registered sale-deed dated 20.6.1983 and Tara Singh further sold the land measuring 6 kanals 12 marlas to Lakhbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh son of Gajjan Singh for Rs. 33,500/-vide registered sale deed dated 1.7.1991. Sakattar Singh, Gajjan Singh sold land measuring 5 kanals 5 marlas through their father as attorney for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-vide registered sale-deed dated 31.7.1986 and therefore, defendants claimed to be bona fide purchasers for consideration. The other averments made in the plaint were also denied.

4. Defendant Nos. 4, 10 and 11 also took similar pleas. Similarly defendant No. 16 also filed separate written statement claiming on the same lines.

5. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is co-sharer in the suit land and is entitled to joint possession of the suit property.