The court recognized the validity of a sale transaction despite the plaintiff's claims of it being fraudulent, affirming that credible evidence established the execution of a sale agreement.

1. This First Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 11th May, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District - Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.22 - A / 2006 by which the respondent - plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction has been decreed in his favour and against the appellants - defendant. By the impugned judgment and decree, the agreement dated 9.10.2004 has been declared void and illegal and appellants - defendant is directed to handover the possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court has also granted decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the appellants - defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute.

2. Respondent - plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory decree, recovery of possession of the house in dispute and also for permanent injunction on the pleadings inter alia that the house in dispute is owned by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant were known to each other and the plaintiff, in need of money, demanded a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Rajmal Goyal, the defendant No. 2. It was the case of the plaintiff that a stamp paper was purchased and the plaintiff was asked to sign on stamp paper by misleading him that the document relates to transaction of loan of Rs.25,000/- taken by the plaintiff from the defendant No.2. The plaintiff, it is stated, had never agreed to sell his property to defendant No.1 nor he ever executed any sale deed or any agreement of sale with defendant No.2. Further case of the plaintiff was that when the plaintiff went to the house of defendant in the month of November 2004 to return the loan amount, the defendant No.2 was not found and his brother defendant No.3 asked him to leave the money with assurance that when defendant No.2 returns, the stamp paper would be returned to the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that thereafter on 20th November, 2004, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 along with 8 to 10 armed persons arrived in the disputed house, abused plaintiff's wife and attempted to dispossess them, in respect of which a report was lodged in the police station. Later on, it is pleaded, again attempt was made to dispossess by throwing away households and movable property of the plaintiff, kept in the disputed house, on 28.11.2004 and again a report was made in the police station but no action was taken and on the other hand, on the basis of report lodged by the defendants, a false case of commission of offence under S.307, IPC was registered by the police against the plaintiff and other persons on 10.1.2005. Finally, the defendants succeeded in their attempt to dispossess the plaintiff and his wife by use of criminal force. When no action was taken, the wife of the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad. Further allegation was that thereafter on 10.1.2005, defendant again arrived with 10 to 12 armed persons and damaged the house, broke the shutter and took possession of the house by throwing movable properties of the plaintiff which was kept in the house. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff never sold his property to the defendant and his signatures were obtained on so called agreement dated 9.10.2004 by playing fraud and misleading and preparing a forged document and, therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession of the property in disput