The judgment established the binding nature of admissions and the applicability of the Transfer of Property Act in determining property ownership and the validity of sale deeds.

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1. This regular second appeal filed by defendant No.1 and the legal representative, namely, Mohinder Kaur of defendant No.2 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1983 passed by the lower appellate court vide which the appeal filed by them was dismissed and the cross-objections filed by plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.6 to 8 had been accepted and the judgment and decree dated 22.12.1980 passed by the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs was modified to the effect that the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 to 8 shall be entitled to the delivery of the joint possession of the property in dispute from the remaining defendants.

2. The facts leading to the third round of litigation are that Dr. Harchand Singh, the father of the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 to 8, was owner of the land measuring 1 kanal 9 marlas comprised in khasra No. 1756/306/5 now khasra No. 1412. In the year 1940, he constructed two shops thereon after obtaining permission from the Municipal Committee, Khanna and remained in possession of the same along with the passage by their's side and the vacant plot of land. It was pleaded that Dr. Harchand Singh had died on 11.5.1972 and at that time M/s Hans Raj Kidar Nath, Wine Contractors, were the tenants in both the shops. Thereafter, plaintiff No.1 rented out the said two shops, passage and the plot of land in the rear to one Tara Singh, Wine Contractor, Khanna from 1.4.1973 to 31.3.1974 and now the shops were on rent with defendants No.3, 4 and 5 at the rate of Rs.4800/-per annum. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 to 8 had succeeded to the estate of Dr. Harchand Singh including the suit property and defendant No.3 had been paying rent to plaintiff No.1. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 Gurdial Singh (since deceased) had no interest in the estate of Dr. Harchand Singh including the suit property who executed the sale-deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 8.10.1974. It was further pleaded that as defendant No.1 was having knowledge that the suit property did not vest in defendant No.2, therefore, the sale was illegal, void and inoperative regarding the same. Further, the mortgage in favour of Rajwant Singh by defendant No.1 was illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 to 8. On coming to know about the sale deed, plaintiff No.1 asked defendant No.1 to admit the successor-in-interest of Dr. Harchand Singh as owner in possession of the suit property but he refused to do so and that gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking the possession of the suit property.

3. To controvert the averments made in the plaint, defendant No.1 filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit property as owner since 8.10.1974, the date of sale and prior to the same he had been a tenant under defendant No.2 in a portion of the suit property since 1960, who was in exclusive possession thereof as owner.

4. Defendant No.2 in his written statement pleaded that the suit property along with other property situated in Khanna, jointly vested in him, Dr. Harchand Singh and Bhagwanti after interest of his elder brother, Ram Narain, who was originally the Karta of the Joint Hindu Family was separated after prolonged litigation and in partition, the suit property together with other property had fallen to his share and he had been in exclusive possession thereof since 22.11.1951. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 was his tenant in a specific portion from 1960 and that Dr. Harchand Singh had also orally abandoned his rights in the property of his share at Khanna. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs a