Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

Instant regular first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant under section 96 CPC against the order dated 23.9.2016 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Fatehpur, District Sikar ('the learned court below') in Civil Suit No. 126/2006, whereby the learned court below dismissed the application filed by the defendant/respondent No. 2-Subhash Chand Soni under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC.

2. Facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant ('the plaintiff' for short) filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed dated 24.7.2016 against the defendants/respondents ('the defendants' for short) mentioning therein that the plaintiff and his father Babulal were having a shop on rent. Both-son and father were doing the business of a Tea and Water. Looking to advance old age of the father, the plaintiff alone was doing the said business on the shop. The erstwhile owner of the shop filed a suit for eviction against the father of the plaintiff and the eviction suit was decreed against his father upto Supreme Court. Finally compromise took place between the erstwhile owner and father of the plaintiff to sale the shop to the father. Since father of the plaintiff was not having money to purchase this shop, hence the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration amount to the erstwhile owner. Some payment was done by him and the payment was done after borrowing money from the creditors and on the request of the father and in the honour of the father, the plaintiff became ready for execution of sale deed of this shop in the name of his father and accordingly the sale deed of this shop was executed in the name of his father but the plaintiff remained in possession of this shop.

3. On 14.3.2002, father-Babulal executed a document in writing that this shop was purchased by his son Pawan Kumar from his own fund but the sale deed was executed in the name of Babulal. His son Pawan has all rights on this property. he is his legal representatives and his children would not claim any right in this property.

4. Defendant No. 2-Subhash Chand Soni was also tenant of the erstwhile owner. After purchase of this shop, the defendant No. 2 became tenant of the plaintiff. He paid the rent to the plaintiff for sometime but later on he did not pay the rent. His situation arose to file eviction suit against them but by using unlawful means, the defendant No. 2 Subhash Chand Soni got the agreement to sale of this shop in his favour from the father of the plaintiff on 24.7.2006 and paid Rs. 21,000/- for the 1st Floor of the shop but the sale deed could not be executed in the interest of the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant No. 2 filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of District Judge, Sikar and the same is pending and an injunction order was passed.

5. Eight months back, the defendant No. 2 forced the defendant No. 1 Babulal to execute the sale deed of the property in his name. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fatehpur, District Sikar ('the learned trial court' for short). The learned trial court passed an order of status quo but finally the application for temporary injunction was rejected, against which the plaintiff filed a Civil Misc. Appeal before the learned District Judge, Sikar. In the civil misc. appeal the learned District Judge, Sikar passed a stay order, intimation to this effect was given to the defendants on 19.7.2002 but in-spite of that the defendant No. 2 got the registered sale deed executed in his favour from the defendant Babulal on 24.7.2006.

6. Defendant No. 2-Subhash Chand Soni filed written statement of denial mentioning therein that 'Likhawati' (writing) dated 14.3.2002 is fabricated and not registered and the property in question was sold by the real owner to him and the plaintiff has no right to challenge the same. However, no objection was taken by the defendant No. 2 that the suit is barred under section 4 of t