.

Hon’ble Dinesh Gupta, J.—This second appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 7.5.1984 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1981 arising out of judgment dated 23.9.81 passed by 7th Additional Munsif, Saharanpur in O.S. No. 585 of 1970.

2. The brief facts which give rise to this appeal are that :

The plaintiff respondent, hereinafter called ‘’the respondent’ filed a suit against the defendant-appellant, hereinafter called ‘’the appellant’ for the relief of cancellation of sale-deed dated 20.12.1968.

As per the allegations contained in the plaint respondent, Abdul Aziz and another filed suit for cancellation of sale-deed with the allegation that the defendant Walidad Khan was the owner in possession over the property situated in Khasra No. 498 area 3 bigha, 3 biswa 10 biswancies.

The said khasra was divided in two numbers 498 A and 498 B. The respondent purchased the said land vide sale-deed dated 16.12.1968.

3. After the execution of the above said sale-deed the appellant No. 2 did not get the sale-deed registered and ultimately the sale-deed was presented for registration on 14.3.1969, before sub Registrar, Saharanur. The defendant No. 2 denied the execution and then the respondents were compelled to file the application before the registrar for compulsory registration and the District Registrar, Saharanpur vide its order dated 18.7.1970 directed the sub Registrar to register the sale-deed.

4. After registration of the sale-deed when the respondent tried to move an application for mutation of their names they came to know that the defendant No. 2 illegally and without any right executed another sale-deed on 20.12.1968 in favour of defendant No. 1.

5. Legally the defendant No. 2, was not owner of the property on 20.12.1968 and he has no right to execute the sale-deed and illegally the plaintiff became the owner of the property vide sale-deed dated 16.12.1968.

The plaintiff so many times asked the defendant to get the sale-deed cancelled. On refusal to do so the plaintiff was left with no option but to file the suit.

6. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 where they denied all the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that defendant No. 2 never executed any sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. On the contrary the real facts are that the defendant No. 2 already sold the land in favor of the defendant No. 1, vide registered sale-deed dated 20.12.1968 and the name of the defendant No. 1 was entered in the revenue records. Later on with the collusion of defendant No. 2 the plaintiff got the sale-deed registered in their names in order to defeat the right of the defendant No. 1.

The defendant No. 2 also filed written submission and denied all the allegations made in the plaint.

7. In the additional pleas the defendant admitted that he was owner of the property in dispute and it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 regarding the execution of sale-deed in respect of the Khasra No. 498 A and 498 B for consideration of Rs.2000/-. However, the plaintiff by playing fraud included the other property of the defendant No. 2 in the said document and when the document was read over to the defendant he refused to get the document registered. Thereafter, the defendant has no information regarding the compulsory registration of the document. The plaintiff filed the replication also and reiterated the contents of the plaint.

After considering the evidence and the pleadings of the parties the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide order dated 24.1.1978 and the sale-deed dated 20.12.1968 was cancelled.

8. Feeling aggrieved the defendant No. 2 preferred civil appeal which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1981 and the same was transferred to the Court of First Additional District Judge who also dismissed the appeal vide its judgment dated 7.5.1984.

Feeling aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 preferred this appeal.

While admitting the appeal the Co