The importance of proving agreements and possession in property disputes.

Rohit Arya, J.

1. The instant appeal by the plaintiff/appellant is directed against the concurrent judgment dated 12.03.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 18-A/2006 confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 87-A/2001 dismissing the Suit. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal as per plaint allegation are that the subject matter of Suit; an agricultural land admeasuring 1 bigha and 3 biswas falling in Survey No. 7, village Pahargarh, Tehsil Jaura, district Morena. According to plaintiff, defendants Jagannath, Mahila Soni and Mahila Ramdevi are brother and sisters and Suit property is of their ownership. Ramdevi and Soni had abandoned their share and had given it to brother Jagannath. As a measure of formality only their names are registered in the revenue records. According to the plaint allegations, Jagannath had taken loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the plaintiff Arun Kumar Sharma and had executed an agreement on 14.02.1994. He had handed over the possession of the Suit land. As per their agreement if Jagannath had returned the money within ten years, he would get back the possession of the land, otherwise he should execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. According to plaintiff, he has been in possession of the Suit land and doing cultivation. On having come to know that a sale deed has been executed in respect of Suit land in favour of defendant no. 1 Rajendra on 10.2.1998 by Jagannath and since he was threatened to be dispossessed from the Suit land, he had filed the Suit for declaration of title and injunction not to interfere with the possession and the sale deed dated 10.01.1998 was null and void.

2. In the Written Statement, Suit allegations were denied in entirety. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stated that though Suit property is that of joint ownership and are in joint possession, each of them have 1/3rd share in it. They have sold the Suit land on 19.2.1998 to defendant no. 1 for consideration of Rs. 31,200/-. Defendant nos. 3 and 4 have not relinquished or abandoned their share in favour of defendant no. 2. Defendants have denied the alleged agreement dated 04.08.1994. They have further denied to receive Rs. 40,000/- from the plaintiff. They have denied to hand over the Suit land. Defendant no. 1 has also filed a Written Statement before the Trial Court. The Trial Court has disbelieved the story framed by the plaintiff in the form of plaint allegations and found that those allegations were not proved. It held;

(1) 40,000/- rupees loan was neither advanced by Arun Kumar nor received by Jagannath.

(2) The alleged agreement dated 14.08.1994 was not proved.

(3) The sale deed dated 09.02.1998 executed by Jagannath, defendant no. 2, Mahila Soni, defendant no. 3, Mahila Ramdevi, defendant no. 4 in favour of plaintiff on 9.2.1998 in favour of defendant no. 1 was valid and accordingly the Trial Court dismissed his Suit.

3. The First Appellate Court has dealt with all issues in detail besides the issue; as to whether the trial Court proceeded with the trial despite order of the High Court dated 27.08.2011 passed in Civil Revision No. 701/2001 whereby the trial Court proceedings were stayed. In paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, the First Appellate Court has in detail considered the submissions and negated the same for the reasons; in another Civil Revision No. 501/2000, the High Court had ordered on 9.10.2000 and 29.06.2001 as an interim measure to maintain status-quo as regards Suit property and ordered for the disposal of the Civil Revision within six months. On later on dated 17.07.2002, the High Court found that the revision is not maintainable in view of amendment in the C.P.C. and dismissed the same. The aforesaid revision was against the order dated 09.09.2008 dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. confirmed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1/98 vide order dated 29.03.2000.

4. Against another order dated 07.10.2001 under Order 13 Rule 2 C.P.C. another revision was file