IMPORTANT POINT
Ostensible Owner - Appellants had not taken any precaution or due care and had not acted in good faith while getting the sale deed registered - Protection under section 41 of the T.P. Act not attracted.

RANJIT SINGH, J.

1. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are under challenge in this second appeal pending since 1982.

2. Thakar Singh and Sadha Singh respondent-plaintiffs (in the present appeal) had filed a suit for possession of 1/2 share of land measuring 137 kanals 18 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint. The case set up by them was that Mukhtiar Singh and Nawab Singh (respondents No.3 and 4-and defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit respectively) were owners in possession of the land to the extent of 1/2 share each. Said Mukhtiar Singh had given general power of attorney to Piara Singh (respondent No.5- and defendant No.3 in the suit). This attorney was registered on 30.5.1968. On the basis of this attorney, Piara Singh sold 1/2 share in the suit land for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- to respondent- plaintiffs Thakar Singh etc. vide registered sale deed dated 13.6.68. It was claimed that the respondentplaintiffs thus continued to be in symbolical possession as owners. It was further claimed that Arjan Singh, Hashnak Singh and Kashmir Singh (defendants No.4, 5 and 6 respectively) along with Amrik Singh and Ajit Singh (defendants No.7 and 8 respectively) had taken forcible possession of the suit land in collusion with Mukhtiar Singh and Nawab Singh defendants and started alleging themselves to be owners of the suit land. Appellantdefendants were asked to admit the claim of the respondent-plaintiffs, which they refused and hence the suit for possession was filed.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant-defendants No.4, 5 and 7) whereas the other defendants referred to above were proceeded exparte. The appellants, who were contesting defendants, had taken a stand that they had purchased the suit land from Mukhtiar Singh (defendant No.1) through a registered sale deed dated 21.4.78 for a consideration of Rs.49,800/-. It was their case that they had purchased this land after making proper inquiry from the revenue record and, accordingly, even if there be an earlier sale in favour of the respondent-plaintiffs, the appellants were protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. They had further averred that the sale in favour of the respondent- plaintiffs was fictitious and, accordingly, urged that they were estopped from filing the suit. After filing of replication, the trial followed on the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are the vendees of the suit land from defendants No.1 ?OPP.

2. Whether the defendants No.4 to 8 purchased the suit land from defendant No.1, if so, its effect ?OPD.

3. If issue No.2 is proved whether the defendants are protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act? OPD.

4. Whether the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs is fictitious ?OPD

5. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit ?OPD

6. Relief.

4. Six witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondentplaintiffs and they were Dalip Singh (PW1), Chanchal Singh (PW2), Prem Kumar (PW3), Som Parkash (PW4), Kashmir Singh (PW5) and Dalip Singh (PW6). In addition, receipts Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 dated 7.8.68 and general power of attorney Ex.P3 and so also copy of the sale deed Ex.P4 was produced in evidence. Ex.P4/A was an endorsement of the Sub Registrar and Ex.P5 was a copy of the jamabandi. Appellant-defendants, on the other hand, examined four witnesses in their defence, namely, Harnek Singh (DW1), Mohan Singh (DW2), Amir Singh (DW3) and Satpal Gupta (DW4) besides tendering Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, which were the copies of the sale deeds and an agreement of sale Ex.D3 along with khasra girdawari etc.

5. The trial court on analysis of evidence came to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiffs were vendees of the suit land from Mukhtiar Singh, who was defendant No.1 in the suit. It was further found by the trial Court that the sale deed in favour of the appellant-defendants was dated 17.2.76 whereas the respondent-plaintiffs had purchased the suit land from defendant N