The court emphasized that the agreement to sale did not confer any right or title to the respondent in the disputed land, and the revenue court did not have the authority to draw inferences in favor of the appellant based on the agreement to sale.

Judgment

The appellant/defendant has filed this appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2013 passed by Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge Sihora, District Jabalpur, in Civil Regular Appeal No.61-A/2013 whereby, dismissing his appeal, the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2009, passed by IIIrd Civil Judge Class-II Sihora, in Civil Original Suit No.31-A/08, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff against him for declaration and perpetual injunction with respect of the agricultural land described in the plaint, has been affirmed.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that, the respondent herein has filed the impugned suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant with respect of the agricultural land bearing No. 34/4 Area 1.416 Hectare, (renumbered in the fresh settlement as Khasara No.55 area 1.41 Hector) situated in Patwari Halka No.7 at village Nigwani, contending that he being title holder is in possession of such land on the strength of the registered sale deed dated 10.09.1970 (Ex.D.1) executed by appellant in his favour. The appellant did not have any authority to keep or continue his name as Bhoomiswami in the revenue record on such land. The order dated 06.10.2012 passed by Naib Tahsildar in revenue case No.22.A/6/98-99, directing the mutation of such land in the name of appellant is ab-initio void. As per further averment that the alleged transaction of the sale was neither the transaction of mortgage nor had taken place with the agreement to sale again to the appellant. It is also stated that with malafide intention, the appellant on the basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sale, has got mutated such land in his name by the aforesaid order of the Naib Tahsildar. The agreement was not only forged and fabricated document but the same had not given any right or title to the appellant. In any case, the agreement on which the mutation order was obtained itself, had not given any right or title of the land in favour of the appellant and in such premises, the impugned suit was filed with the relief mentioned above.

3. In the written statement of the appellant by admitting the execution of the aforesaid registered sale deed by him in favour of the respondent, the other facts stated regarding title and possession of the respondent are denied. In addition to it, in special pleadings, it is stated that the respondent/plaintiff has not come with clean hands. The respondent was the money lender and the appellant was in need of money and due to that, in the month of August, 1967, he obtained Rs.700/- as loan on interest @ 3% per month from the respondent so the interest sum has become Rs.756/- in three years and to carry out the aforesaid sale deed vide dated 10.09.1970, Rs.800/- was spent by the respondent. Accordingly, the total sum of the loan had become (Rs.700+756+800) total Rs.2,256/- and that's why on execution of the sale deed Rs.2,300/- was shown the remaining consideration. As the respondent was the money lender, the appellant had mortgaged his land with him in consideration of the sum of the loan in the shape of the aforesaid sale deed dated 10.09.1970, therefore, simultaneously, they also entered into an agreement on the same day whereby, the term to re-sale the aforesaid land in favour of the appellant was finalized. According to it, the respondent had agreed to return the land and execute the sale deed in favour of appellant on repayment of the sum of the loan. On the terms of such agreement, the appellant went to the respondent to pay the aforesaid sum with a prayer to execute the sale deed in his favour, but the respondent refused to take such sum and also denied to execute the sale deed of such land in favour of the appellant. Beside the impugned case, the respondent had also kept the land of Neema Bai and the house of some Mahila Kotwar under the mortgaged in the shape of registered sale transaction and lat