C A V Judgment

Per Goutam Bhaduri, J

1) This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 passed by the learned 7th Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil Suit No.47-A/2012 whereby the learned Court has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and declared the sale-deed dated 31.05.2005 as null and void, which pertains to the land bearing Kh.No.9, 10, 13 admeasuring 1.21, 1.34 and 0.89 total 3.44 hectares situated at village Aheri, P.H.No.26, Tahsil Dhamdha. It was further decreed that the defendants 1 to 3 and their agents shall be permanently restrained from entering into or interfering with the land as they have no right to enter into and interfere with it. Being aggrieved by such order, the instant appeal is by defendants 1 to 3.

2) As per the plaint averments, the suit was filed by Smt. Parvati Shivare in her individual capacity as also being the mother of minor son Ravindra Kumar Shivare who was arrayed as Plaintiff No.2 seeking a declaration that the sale deed dated 31.05.2005 made by the defendants as null and void and permanent injunction was also prayed for. The order sheet would show that the suit was filed on 12.06.2012. The plaintiffs averred that the lands situated at village Aheri, Patwari Circle No. 26, Tahsil Damdha, Sub-tahsil Ahiwara District Durg, bearing Kh. Nos. 9, 10, 13 admeasuring 1.21, 1.34, 0.89 hectares total 3.44 hectares as mentioned in Plaint Schedule-A presently stand recorded in the name of plaintiff and her son and the plaintiff is in possession of it. It was stated that defendants 1 to 3, the appellants herein, namely Kashi Ram, Sukhchand and Malik Ram got the sale deed executed in their favour by an impostor lady by personating herself as Parvati Shivare and the forged sale deed got executed in their favour, which is required to be set aside as null and void. The plaintiffs have claimed that they came to know about such forged sale deed when the defendants 1 to 3 filed application before the Tahsildar to get their names mutated, which stood rejected on 08.08.2005. The said order was challenged in appeal and on 06.11.2006, the SDO also rejected the appeal preferred by the defendants. Against such mutation proceeding, the defendants 1 to 3 again filed a revision before the Commissioner, Raipur which was pending. The cause of action therefore was stated to be firstly on 31.05.2005 and subsequently when the application was filed for mutation before the Tahsildar was rejected on 08.08.2005 and subsequent thereto on 06.11.2006 when the appeal was dismissed by the SDO. The plaintiff therefore prayed that the sale deed dated 31.05.2005 be declared as null and void. The plaintiffs also averred that they filed FIR which is also pending.

3) The defendants stated that the plaintiffs averred that the cause of action arose on 31.05.2005 when the suit was filed, but the suit was filed beyond the period of 3 years, therefore, it was barred by time. Further defence was raised that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and they maintained the stand that on 31.05.2005, the plaintiff on behalf of her son executed the sale deed in favour of defendants for a valuable consideration and the sale deed contains the photographs of seller and sale was got registered. It was stated that the plaintiff knowing fully well about the valid execution of sale deed way back in 2005 was sitting idle for 6-7 years, which would show that the sale deed in fact was executed. The defendants further stated that the land was purchased by sellers from one Harbhajan Singh and others but subsequent to sale to the defendants, their motive changed and in order to get further amount, it was alleged that the sale deed is fake. Further defence was raised that after plaintiff no.2 who was said to be minor at the time of filing suit became major and subsequently even after achieving the age of majority, he has not challenged the sale. Therefore, the suit would be barred under the law of limitation. Further defen