Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the proposed defendant appellant and perused the record.

2. This second appeal has been filed by Veer Sain, son of late Brahm Singh, resident of village Badawad, Tehsil Baraut, district Baghpat, claiming himself to be proposed defendant appellant against Om Pal son of Abhay Ram and his real brother Sudhir Chikara, both resident of village Badawad, Tehsil Baraut, district Baghpat.

3. The second appeal has been preferred by the said proposed defendant appellant challenging the validity and correctness of judgment and decree dated 26.4.2010 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Baghpat in civil Appeal No. Nil of 2010, arising out judgment and decree dated 3.4.2010 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.-II), Baghpat in original suit No. 136 of 2004, between Om Pal...plaintiff and Sudhir Chikara...defendant.

4. The dispute relates to Khasra No. 674, area 0.181 hectare situate in village Badawad, Tehsil Baraut, district Baghpat. Late Brahm Singh, father of the proposed defendant appellant, was the recorded owner of the aforesaid land and a registered sale deed is said to have been executed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Baghpat pursuant to ex parte judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995 passed in original suit No. 252 of 1994 against Brahm Singh, father of proposed defendant appellant Veer Sain. It is in the aforesaid manner that plaintiff respondent No. 1- Om Pal became owner of the land in dispute. Om Pal thereafter on 2.11.2001 executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant respondent No. 2-Sudhir Chikara, brother of the proposed defendant appellant, for sale consideration of approximately Rs. 67000/-.

5. Events thereafter took a turn. Defendant respondent No. 2 Sudhir Chikara, brother of the proposed defendant appellant, is said to have gone missing since 27.8.2003 and his whereabouts are not known. An application is said to have been given by proposed defendant appellant Veer Sain in the police station Binauli to the effect that his brother Sudhir Chikara is missing. This first information report appears to have been lodged on 13.10.2003 i.e. almost one and half months. After the incident of 27.8.2003 i.e. the date when Sudhir Chikara-defendant respondent No. 2 is said to have gone missing, the proposed defendant appellant claims that he came in physical and cultivatory possession of the land in question. After lodging the first information report on 13.10.2003, within three months proposed defendant appellant Veer Sain on 5.2.2004 filed original suit No. 2 of 2004 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 6.2.2001 regarding adjoining land of Khasra No. 275 area 0.818 hectare, which is said to have annoyed plaintiff respondent No. 1 Om Pal. It is stated that Om Pal, plaintiff respondent No. 1 in retaliation filed original suit No. 136 of 2004 for cancellation of the sale deed dated 2.11.2001 against Sudhir Chikara, brother of the proposed defendant appellant though it is stated that he had knowledge that Sudhir Chikara had gone missing with effect from 27.8.2003.

6. It is argued that Civil Judge (J.D.-II), Baghpat without framing any issue and without adjudicating the case, by an ex parte judgment dated 3.4.2010 decreed the suit. Civil Appeal No. nil of 2010 was preferred by proposed defendant appellant Veer Sain before the District Judge, Baghpat which has been dismissed at the admission stage itself holding that the appellant has no locus standi and is not an aggrieved person. Judgments and decree dated 3.4.2010 in the suit and dated 26.4.2010 in the civil appeal, is said to have given right to the proposed defendant appellant to file the present second appeal.

7. Admitted facts in this case may now be summarised as under :

(a) Om Pal-plaintiff respondent No. 1 had become owner of the land in dispute on the basis of a registered sale deed executed by Civil Judge on the basis of judgment and decree dated 20.10.1995 passed in original suit No.