Point of Law:
Order XIV provides settlement of issues and determination of suit on issues of law or on issues agreed upon. Rule 1(1) provides issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, Shri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mohammad Arif khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ram Dev Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.27 of 2014 by the learned Additional District Judge/Special Judge (A.P.) CBI, Lucknow as well as the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2002 passed in Regular Suit No.64 of 1999 (Sahab Deen Vs. Keshav Prasad and Others) by the learned Civil Judge, (J.D), Hawali, Lucknow

3. The brief facts of the case are that the land in question i.e. gata no.216 having an area of 9 Bigha, 12 Biswa, 9 Biswansi situated in Village-Bhaisora, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Lucknow was purchased by the appellant/plaintiff from his father-in-law on 21.02.1998. Thereafter he instituted a case for mutation before the Tehsil. His father-in-law, under the influence of his other son-in-laws, demanded additional money. When the appellant/plaintiff showed his inability to pay the additional money, the brother-in-laws of the appellant/plaintiff i.e. the son-in-laws of his father-in-law namely Ram Nath, Juggi Lal and Suresh filed a forged objection putting his thumb impression. The respondent/defendants no.1 and 2 had also filed objection in the court of Naib Tehsildar on the ground that the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff has entered into an agreement for sale with them. The appellant/plaintiff has no knowledge about the alleged agreement. The father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff, who is a member of scheduled tribes, also could not sell the land in question to the respondent/defendants no.1 and 2 who are not member of scheduled tribes under Section 157 (B) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondent/defendants no.1 and 2 had also filed a Regular Suit No.828 of 1998 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division-Hawali against the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff for cancellation of sale deed.

4. The appellant/plaintiff had filed a regular suit no.64 of 1999 for cancellation of sale deed dated 23.11.1998 executed in favour of the respondent/defendant no.4 namely Sarju on the ground that the respondent/defendants had kidnapped the appellant/plaintiff and Shri Raghunandan Prasad, the witness of the sale deed on 21.11.1998 and kept them in their custody, beaten, threatened and asked them to execute the sale deed and in case of default they would be implicated in a false criminal case. They had taken to the appellant/plaintiff and Raghunandan Prasad to the office of the Sub Registrar and got the sale deed executed while the appellant/plaintiff and Raghunandan Prasad were under duress which was registered in the office of Sub Registrar at Sl. No.4516 part 97/98 PU.73/84 on 23.11.1998. The appellant/plaintiff and the witness were released by the defendants after execution of the sale deed without paying the sale consideration and threatening of implicating in a false case in case they tell to anybody. On coming back he came to know that his wife had given information of his kidnapping to the State Authorities and had also gone to the Police Station-Gosainganj but no action was taken. On receipt of copy of the sale deed the appellant/plaintiff came to know that the purchaser is Sarju S/o Sita Ram resident of Ahibaranpur. He had also given application to the higher Police officers on 26.12.1998 for his safety and lodging FIR against the accuseds but under the pressure of the respondent/defendants the FIR could be lodged on 20.01.2001 at Police Station-Gomti Nagar.

5. On issuance of the notices, the respondent/defendants had appeared in the suit but did not file any written statement therefore the suit was proceeded ex-parte. The appellant/plaintiff-Sahab Deen was examined as PW-1, Chameli W/o Shri Sahab Deen as PW2 and Raghunandan Prasad S/o Ram Deen as PW-3. Thereafter the suit was decided