##PAGE1##

Office Notes, reports,

orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions and COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

No

Registrar’s order with

Signatures

SA No. 212 of 2019

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel holding

the brief of Mr. Amish Tewari, learned counsel for the

appellants.

2. Mr. Deewan Singh Dhapola, respondent no. 1

present in person with Mr. A.D. Tripathi, learned

counsel for respondent no. 1.

3. The instant second appeal was admitted on two

substantial questions of law on 10.12.2019. The

appellant herein is the plaintiff of Suit No. 42 of 2018,

wherein, the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in

favour of defendant nos. 2 and 3 dated 01.04.2016 was

challenged. The suit was filed on the ground that the

sale deed dated 01.04.2016 be declared as null and void

since the same land was already purchased by the

plaintiff by virtue of registered sale deed dated

26.09.2013, which was executed by one Bhupendra S/o

Trilok Singh in his favour. In both the sale deeds dated

01.04.2016 and 26.09.2013 the land falling in Khet No.

2181 measuring 8 Muthi out of which 2 Muthi was sold

to respondent no. 1 by one Trilok Singh by virtue of

sale deed dated 22.05.1985, one Muthi was utilized in a

road and the remaining 5 Muthi was sold out by

Bhupendra Singh to plaintiff by virtue of sale deed

dated 26.09.2013.

4. In the said suit the defendant filed their counter

claim, however the counter claim was rejected for want

of jurisdiction and the same was not challenged. The

suit was decreed, however the defendants went in

appeal before the First Appellate Court and the First

Appellate Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the

order of Trial Court and being aggrieved now by the

plaintiff/appellant the instant second appeal has been

preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the

respondent no. 1 examined before the Trial Court and

admits that he has raised the construction over the area

which is not part of the sale deed dated 01.04.2016.

6. On the other side, learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the area where respondent no.

1 raised the construction is of 40 years old and the

construction was started infact in 1986 since they got

absolute right by virtue of the registered sale deed

dated 22.05.1985.

7. Apart from this, respondent also argued that

infact the person who executed the sale deed in favour

of the appellant on 26.09.2013 is not the son of the

actual owner Trilok Singh, which is evident from the

fact that by virtue of sale deed dated 26.09.2013 the

mutation proceeding was initiated, however, the

revenue court declined to record the name of the

appellant in the revenue records, in support of which

the supplementary affidavit has been filed by the

respondents.

8. The Trial Court record has already been received

but the paper book is not prepared.

9. The Registry is directed to prepare the paper

book and supply the learned counsel for the parties on

payment of usual charges.

10. List this appeal for final hearing on 25.02.2026.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

22.12.2025

PR