RAJBIR SEHRAWAT, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals i.e. RSA No.988 of 2011 and RSA No.4886 of 2011. Both the appeals emerged from the same judgment, passed in two different suits. Hence, both the appeals are being decided by a common order.

2. For convenience, the parties would be referred herein, as the plaintiff and defendant, as they were described in the suit filed by Nanak Singh.

3. The brief facts of this case are that, Nanak Singh, who is respondent No.1 (being represented by LRs) in the present appeal, filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction, claiming that the defendant be restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the suit property, which is land measuring 04 marlas; was owned by Manphool Singh, defendant No.1 in the suit, who was the real brother of Nanak Singh. Manphool Singh and Nanak Singh were otherwise co-sharers in the land. However, Manphool Singh entered into an agreement dated 08.07.1981 with Nanak Singh. As per the agreement, the said Manphool Singh agreed to sell the land to Nanak Singh. Consideration for the said transaction was fixed to be Rs.2000/-. The entire consideration was paid by the plaintiff Nanak Singh. It was further recorded in the agreement that the possession of the suit land has been given to the plaintiff. However, no date for execution of the sale deed was fixed by the parties to the agreement. It was further, pleaded that the plaintiff had become owner of the property; by virtue of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, taking advantage of continuing wrong entries in the revenue record, the defendant Manphool Singh intended to alienate the suit property, in favour of somebody else. It was further claimed, that plaintiff made numerous requests to the defendant not to alienate the suit property. However, the defendant was adamant. Therefore, the suit was filed.

4. Notice in the suit was issued. However, the service upon the Manphool Singh, was yet to be effected, because he had shifted to Rajasthan. On 20.11.2007. The counsel for the plaintiff got a recorded statement that defendant No.1-Manphool Singh had died. Still further, it was stated by the counsel that Manphool Singh had already sold the property to the present appellant i.e. Rajender Singh. Accordingly, the plaintiff amended the plaint to implead the subsequent purchaser, i.e. the appellant in the present appeal, as defendant No.2 in the suit. The same was allowed. After being impleaded as defendant, the present appellant/defendant No.2 in the original suit, filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff. It was claimed that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the contesting defendant was the bona fide purchaser; for consideration and without notice. Ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property was denied by him.

5. Replication was filed, and the averments in the plaint were reasserted/re-affirmed by the plaintiff. The possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was asserted by the plaintiff in replication as well. The averments raised by the defendant were denied. The sale deed dated 23.07.2004 registered on 03.08.2004, in favour of newly added defendant was also questioned, as being fraudulent and, as not conferring any title upon the defendant.

6. After considering the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the issues as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of agreement dated 8.7.1981. If so what effect? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled to protection under Section 53-A of Transfer of Property Act? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP.

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.

5. Whether the plaintiff (?) is not properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD.

6. Whether the defendant Rajender Singh is bonafi