JUDGMENT :

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

Defendants No.1 to 4 (Sat Pal Singh, Jang Singh @ Jai Pal Singh, Mohan Pal Singh and Kanwar Pal Singh @ Raj Karan Singh) are in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.1990 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide which the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.01.1987 passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, First Class Ambala City was allowed and the suit for possession filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, parties shall be referred to as per their original status.

3. The respondents-plaintiffs (Mahabir Singh, LRs of Tej Pal Singh and Jag Pal Singh) filed a suit for possession of land measuring 4 Bighas 12 Biswas (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) situated in Village Bihta Tehsil and District Ambala. The case set up by the plaintiffs was that one Smt. Chameli was the owner in possession to the extent of 1/3rd share out of total land measuring 98 Bighas situated in Village Bihta, Tehsil and District Karnal. Out of land measuring 13 Bighas 14 Biswas, Smt. Chameli sold the suit land to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 09.11.1973/12.11.1973 for a total sale consideration of Rs.6000/- and delivered the possession of the same to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.9 Sh. Aflatoon had accompanied Smt. Chameli at the time of registration of the sale deed and had appended his signatures on the same.

3.1. On the basis of the registered sale deed, mutation No.648 was entered. However, the same was not sanctioned in view of objections raised by defendants No.1 to 4. In fact the mutation was rejected on 28.05.1974. Appeal to the Collector and revision petition to the Commissioner were also dismissed on 07.10.1976 on 27.09.1977.

3.2. Defendants No.1 to 4 also applied for partition of the land in the joint Khewats including the suit land. However, the plaintiffs were not arrayed as parties but Smt. Chameli was arrayed as a party. In those proceedings, the suit land was allotted to Smt. Chameli in lieu of her 1/3rd share in the land measuring 13 Bighas 14 Biswas. As the plaintiffs had not been impleaded as parties, they could not obtain the possession of the suit land as a result of which the suit had to be filed.

3.3. It was also averred that the defendants took undue advantage of the proceedings pending before the Tehsildar, Ambala and took possession of the suit land despite having the knowledge that the same had been sold to the plaintiffs.

3.4. It was further averred that any decree, as being claimed by the defendants to be in their favour against Smt. Chameli and mutation executed in their favour on the basis of the same would have no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs as the suit land had already been sold to them by Smt. Chameli. It was averred that under the circumstances, the alleged collusive decree dated 21.10.1974 and mutation No.715 dated 07.03.1975 were illegal and unauthorized and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs. It was averred that the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs when the revision petition failed in 1977 and their possession was disturbed in the month of November/December 1977.

4. The suit was opposed by defendants No.1 to 4 only. In the written statement, the ownership of Smt. Chameli over the lands mentioned in the plaint including the suit land was admitted. The land having been sold to the plaintiffs was denied and it was averred that the sale deed had been fictitiously executed by the plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit filed by them against Smt. Chameli. It was also averred that the sale was without consideration. They had objected to the registration of the sale deed before the Registrar also but the Registrar did not agree. It was averred that the sale was hit by the principles of 'lis pendens.' Other averments were denied. Certain additional pleas were taken that Smt. Chameli had no right to al