The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Transfer of Property Act, specifically Section 52 and Section 53-A, in determining the validity of the sale deed and the protection of the plaintiff's possession.

SURINDER GUPTA, J.

1. This is appeal against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was decreed as follows:-

“The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs to the effect that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from defendants No.1 and 2 vide the agreement dated 09.06.1972 and since then he is owner-in-possession thereof. The impugned sale deed bearing No.336 dated 06.06.1988 in favour of defendant No.3 is the result of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment of facts and same is hereby set aside.”

2. On appeal by appellant-defendant No.3 Rohtash, first Appellate Court upheld the decree passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge {now re-designated as Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)}, Mahendergarh.

3. The case of plaintiff Sanwal Ram, in brief, is that defendants No.1 and 2 namely Leela and Smt. Ratni were owners in possession of 1/2 share of plot measuring 19 marlas bearing khasra No.591 khatoni No.7 khewat No.3 situated in village Bhagot @ Baghot, Tehsil and District Mahendergarh, which they agreed to sell to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.800/- vide Writing dated 09.06.1972 in favour of plaintiff. Possession of the disputed plot was also handed over to him. After purchasing, the plaintiff has been using this plot and the entry of the purchase agreement was also incorporated in the revenue record. His possession after purchase of plot was throughout hostile against the right of the owner.

4. Defendants No.1 and 2 sold the suit land in favour of defendant No.3 vide sale deed No.336 dated 06.06.1988. This sale deed is a paper transaction and liable to be cancelled. Defendant No.3 was fully aware of the sale of the disputed plot in favour of plaintiff and his possession over it. The plaintiff came to know about sale deed when defendant No.3 sought mutation of the disputed plot in the revenue record in his favour. Plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of disputed plot and is entitled to get the entry to this effect recorded in the revenue record. He also sought cancellation of the sale deed dated 06.06.1988 alleging the same as illegal, null and void.

5. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Regarding the sale deed dated 06.06.1988 executed by them in favour of defendant No.3, it was alleged that they have agreed to sell a plot to defendant No.3 within 'Lal Dora' but he by playing smart, got executed the sale deed of the disputed plot in his favour but the possession of the same was never handed over to him.

6. Defendant No.3 in his separate written statement alleged that defendants No.1 and 2 were owners of disputed plot. No agreement was executed by them in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff has fraudulently got his name entered in the revenue record in connivance with the revenue officials. As per the sale deed dated 06.06.1988, defendant No.3 has become owner of the suit land and possession was also handed over to him on the same day.

7. Pleadings of the parties led to the framing of issues as follows:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share on the ground mentioned in the plaint? OPP

(2) Whether the sale deed dated 06.06.1988 executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff ? OPP

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

(4) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ?OPD

(5) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD

(6) Relief.

8. While deciding issue No.1 and 2, learned Additional Civil Judge observed as follows:-

(i) In the suit filed by Asharfi wife of plaintiff bearing civil suit No.356 dated 04.06.1988 against defendants No.1 and 2, an injunction order was passed restraining the defendants from alienating suit land. During the operation of that inj