The court affirmed that a sale deed is valid unless proven to be a mortgage by conditional sale under Section 58(c), emphasizing the necessity of matching documentary intentions.

ORDER :

G. S. Ahluwalia, J.

This second appeal, under section 100 of CPC, has been filed against the judgement and decree dated 6/5/2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Mungavali, District Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No. 67A of 2012, as well as, judgement and decree dated 5/1/2011 passed by Civil Judge Class 1, Mungavali in Civil Suit No. 3A of 2007.

2. Appellants are defendants who have lost their case from both the Courts below.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction pleading inter alia that he is the owner and in possession of area 1.045 hectares out of 1.494 hectares of Survey No. 112 situated in village Atreji, Tahsil Mungavali, District Ashoknagar. On the southern side of the land, land of defendant No. 1 is situated whereas on the eastern side, land of Ram Prasad is situated and on the western side remaining land of survey No. 112 is there and on the northern side, land of defendants is situated. It was claimed that plaintiff is the sole owner and in possession of the property in dispute, as it was purchased by plaintiff from the father of defendants namely Feran Singh by registered sale deed dated 30/5/1998 for a consideration amount of Rs.1,05,000/- and since then plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute and even today he is in possession thereof. On 1/9/2007, at about 10:00 a.m., plaintiff was ploughing his field with the help of a Tractor. At that time defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and 2-3 other persons came at the disputed property and tried to stop the plaintiff from cultivating the land. When plaintiff replied that he has purchased the property from their father and why they are picking quarrel then it was challenged by defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 by claiming that the land belongs to them and therefore they would cultivate the land and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff and also started denying the right and title of plaintiff. However the plaintiff did not allow defendant Nos. 1,2,4 and 6 to take possession and with great difficulty he persuaded them to go back. However while going back defendants extended a threat that they would take possession and accordingly suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction was filed.

4. Defendants filed their written statement and denied the right and title of plaintiff. It was claimed that defendant Nos. 1-6 are in cultivating possession of the property in dispute and defendants are owner of survey No. 112 area 1.045 hectares. It was claimed that Feran Singh was not the father of all the defendants but he was the father of defendant Nos. 1-3 only whereas he was grandfather of defendant Nos. 4-6. It was denied that Feran Singh had executed a sale deed in respect of Survey No. 112 area 1.045 hectares, but it was claimed that he had mortgaged the property. On the date of execution of sale deed one receipt was executed by plaintiff in presence of attesting witnesses Raghuvir Singh and Hazrat Singh by agreeing that in case if Feran Singh returns the entire amount within a period of 2 years then the deed of reconveyance would be executed. It was claimed that Feran Singh continued to be in possession of the property in dispute and after his death defendants are in possession. The incident as alleged by plaintiff on 1/9/2007 was denied. In special plea it was stated that on the basis of sale deed plaintiff has got his name mutated in the revenue records but it was done without information to Feran Singh. A