Judgment on Board

1. By the present appeal under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellant/plaintiff challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 04/03/2020 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pendra Road, Dist: Bilaspur, C.G. in Civil Appeal No.10A/2019 (Jagdamba Prasad Vs Ishwar Farmaniya & Ors) arising out of the judgment and decree dated 26/10/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Pendra Road, C.G. in Civil Suit No.122A/2005 (Jagdamba Prasad Vs Ishwar Farmaniya & Ors).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred as per their status before the learned trial Court.

3. The plaintiff preferred a suit seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction, pleading inter alia that the land situated in Village Pendra, Patwari Halka No. 26, R.I. Circle Pendra, Tehsil Pendra Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.), bearing Khasra No. 2054/1, area 9.10 acres, is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. The said land was recorded in the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff’s father (Defendant No. 2) as the landowner. Defendant No. 2, Kishanlal Agrawal (father of the plaintiff), had executed a family settlement deed on 09/08/1967 and got it registered, thereby transferring the said land to the plaintiff. At that time, the plaintiff was a minor. His grandmother, Smt. Singari Bai, acted as his guardian and took possession of the land on his behalf. After attaining majority, the plaintiff has continued to remain in ownership and possession of the suit land. Defendant No. 2 had no right to sell the suit land, but on 18/10/2002, he sold a portion of the land (Khasra No. 2054/1, area 0.72 acres) to Defendant No.1. In the said sale deed, the market value is shown as ₹1,92,500, whereas the actual value is more than ₹15,00,000. Proper consideration was not paid, and the sale deed is merely a nominal and fraudulent document, hence Defendant No. 1 does not acquire any valid title. On 10/06/2004, Defendant No. 1 started demolishing the wall constructed on the suit land under the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and illegally got his name recorded in the revenue records.

4.

(a) The defendant No. in his written statement, denied all the plaint averments. He submitted that the disputed land belonged to Defendant No. 2, Kishanlal. In the presence of his sons i.e. the plaintiff Jagdamba Prasad, Bhagwati Prasad, and Durgaprasad, a deal for the sale of the suit land was made and the land was lawfully sold to Defendant No.1. On 17/10/2002, after receiving the full sale consideration, a registered sale deed was duly executed in favor of Defendant No. 1, and possession of the land was also properly handed over to him. The alleged family settlement deed executed in favor of the plaintiff is stated to be forged, and no demolition of any wall belonging to the plaintiff took place on the disputed land. Rather, the disputed land is under the ownership and possession of Defendant No. 1 himself. He submitted that due to the increase in the value of the disputed land, the plaintiff has filed this suit by relying on fabricated facts.

(b) Defendant No. 1 has also submitted that on 16/10/2002, all the concerned persons appeared before the Sub-Registrar Office at Pendra Road. The contents of the written stamp document were read by Defendant No. 2 in the presence of his sons and witnesses. Defendant No. 2 himself presented it before the Sub- Registrar for registration. The Sub-Registrar also read out the contents of the document to all the persons present, and upon their consent, instructed his subordinate staff to affix the necessary seal and signatures at the appropriate places. After completion of all formalities, the registration process was completed, a receipt of registration fees was issued, and the signatures of the seller (Defendant No. 2) were obtained. Entries of signatures and thumb impressions were also made in the office register. After registration of the sale deed,