In property disputes, the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds prevail over the area mentioned in the agreement to sell. The relevance of the agreement to sell diminishes after the execution of the sale deed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri P.K.Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Satya Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.C. Varma, Advocate, alongwith Ms. Kamla Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. These two second appeals filed by the appellants under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure challenges the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2018 passed and drawn by Additional District Judge, Court No.14, Allahabad in Civil Appeal No.108 of 2014 arising out of Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 and Civil Appeal No.109 of 2014 arising out of Original Suit No.28 of 1997, as both the Original Suit Nos.1004 of 1996 and 28 of 1997 having been decided by judgment and decree dated 30.7.2014 wherein the Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 was dismissed while the Original Suit No.28 of 1997 filed by the respondent (1st Set) was decreed.

3. Against the judgment and decree dated 21.5.2018 passed by the lower Appellate Court, two second appeal No.849 of 2018 and 861 of 2018 having been filed before this Court. Vide order dated 27.02.2019 Second Appeal No.849 of 2018 was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether the learned courts below have justified in ignoring the boundaries mentioned in the agreement to sale dated 15.4.1986 and in another agreement to sale dated 21.4.1986. It is firmly established from the judgment of both the courts below that there are discrepancies in the area in the alleged deed dated 21.4.1986 but the boundaries have been clearly mentioned in the said agreement to sake deed dated 21.4.1986, therefore, the boundaries mentioned in the agreement to sale dated 21.4.1986 will prevail over the area, therefore, the finding of both the courts below are not sustainable in the eye of law?

(ii) Whether the lower appellate court was justified in placing the reliance on the documents produced by the storekeeper of the office of Sub-Registrar, Sadar District Allahabad, when admittedly the entire record of the learned trial court has been misplaced after the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the inquiry has been instituted by the learned District Judge. On the other hand, the record of the Sub-Registrar office regarding the original agreement to sale dated 15.4.1986 and the sale deed dated 24.8.1987 of the appellant were also missing and inquiry has been initiated regarding the missing record and the aforesaid document of the appellant. The learned District Judge has initiated the inquiry against the officials on whose pertext the record was lost?

4. While on the same day, i.e. 27.02.2019, Second Appeal No.861 of 2018 was also admitted on the substantial questions of law, as framed in Second Appeal No.849 of 2018, and both the appeal were connected.

5. Counsels for both the parties agree that both the appeals be heard and decided together.

6. The fact leading to the present dispute are that, premises No.72 (Old No.44), Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad was jointly owned by Laxman Das Agrawal, Anand Agrawal, Dhruv Agrawal and Sharad Agrawal. Both late Kamla Shankar Pandey, the plaintiff of Original Suit No.1004 of 1996 and Mahesh Kumar Bhargava, the plaintiff of Suit No.28 of 1997 were the tenant in different portion of the said premises. As the landlord intended to sell the premises, the plaintiff of Suit No.1004 of 1996 approached the landlord. A registered agreement to sell was executed between the landlord and Kamla Shankar Pandey on 15.4.1986. Under the agreement, it was agreed to sell the land measuring 128 Sq.Yard alongwith the superstructure of the double storeyed building alongwith walls completely in South and West and half of the wall in the east. The description of the boundary was given as :