JUDGMENT :

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.

CM-1527-C-2024

The application has been filed by the appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for permission to place additional evidence on record, i.e., revenue record (jamabandis and khasra girdawaris) for 1983-84, 1988-89, 1993-94, 1998-99, 2003-04, 2008-09, 2013-14 and 2018-19, as Annexure-A. This is to show continuance of possession of the suit land with them.

2. Notice of the application was issued to learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondent/plaintiff, now represented through his legal representatives, but no reply has been filed on their behalf disputing the facts mentioned in the application.

3. In view thereof, the application is allowed and the aforementioned revenue record/jamabandis and khasra girdawaris are taken on record as Annexure-A by way of additional evidence.

Main Case

This is defendants/appellants’ second appeal against the judgment, dated 28.08.1990, passed by learned Sub-judge Ist Class, Faridabad/trial Court, and the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1991, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad/lower appellate Court.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from interfering into his possession over the agricultural land measuring 14 kanals and 7 marlas comprised in khewat/khatoni no.32/53 as per jamabandi for the year 1978-79 and khewat/khata no.31/54 as per jamabandi for the year 1983-84, rectangle no.12, kila no.16(7-3) and 25(7-3) situated in revenue estate of village Hirapur Tehsil Ballabgarh. He claimed possession over this land as it had initially been mortgaged to him by defendant no.1 vide registered mortgage deed dated 31.01.1984, Exhibit P-1, for a consideration of Rs. 28,000. Thereafter, defendant no.1 sold this land to him vide registered sale deed dated 12.03.1984, Exhibit P-2, and ever since the latter is continuing in possession as owner of the land.

2.1. Defendant no.1/Tek Chand filed a written statement denying execution of the mortgage deed as well as the sale deed. He also alleged that these deeds were a result of fraud having been played by the respondent/plaintiff and were executed under undue influence. He further pleaded that his son Ram Gopal had challenged the said mortgage deed as well as sale deed by filing civil suit no.518 of 28.07.1984 which was decided on 28.09.1984, and both the deeds were declared null and void on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties, dated 27.09.1985, Exhibit D-5. After cancellation of these deeds, he was at liberty to alienate the suit land which he, in fact, did by way of two separate registered sale deeds in favour of defendants no.2 to 5. The first sale deed, dated 16.11.1984, pertains to land in khasra no.12/25 measuring 7 kanals 3 marlas for a sale consideration of Rs. 35,000; and the second sale deed, dated 14.02.1986, pertains to land in khasra no.12/16 for a sale consideration of Rs. 17,500. Accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff had no right to file the suit. Defendant no.1, however, did not appear in the Court thereafter and was proceeded against ex-parte.

2.2. Defendants no.2 to 5, appellants herein, filed a joint written statement denying the mortgage deed as well as sale deed of the suit land in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Both these documents had been declared null and void by the civil Court in civil suit no.518 on 28.09.1984, as aforementioned. Subsequently, they had purchased 11 kanals and 3 marlas of land out of the suit land for a sale consideration of Rs. 52,500 vide registered sale deeds as detailed in the previous paragraph, and ever since they had been continuing in possession over the land as owners. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable, and deserved dismissal.

2.3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the averments of the plaint, but admitted passing of the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1984 in civil suit no.518 of 28.07.1984. He, however, cl