Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal arises out of a suit for declaration and in the alternative for possession.
(2.) RAM Dilar, Ram Deo and Raj Bahadur, Respondents Nos. 4 to 6, were the sirdars of a 3/4 share in the holding. On 4 -1 -1965, they applied for the grant of a bhumidhari sanad. The sanad having been granted, they on 4 -4 -1965, executed a deed of sale of their 3/4 share in the holding in favour of the Appellant Gayatri Prasad for a consideration of Rs. 4,000/ -. The vendors, however, refused to complete the registration of the document. The vendee had to apply for compulsory registration and the sale deed was compulsorily registered on 24 -5 -1966. In the meanwhile, on 10 -6 -1965, the vendors executed a fresh deed of sale in favour of Smt. Jagwanti, Respondent No. 8, in respect of their 3/4 share in the holding for Section consideration of Rs. 8,833/ -. The sale deed was registered the same day.
(3.) THE Appellant applied for mutation of his name but the application failed. There were proceedings Under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure between the parties which also terminated against the Appellant. Aggrieved, the Appellant instituted a suit in the revenue court for a declaration Under Section 229 -B, ZA Act and for possession Under Section 209, ZA Act. The suit was son tested by the vendors as well as the subsequent transferee. The principal plea raised by the vendors was that the Plaintiff had not paid the consideration and hence title did not pass. The trial court held that the evidence lip by the Plaintiff in order to prove the payment of the entire sale consideration was doubtful but the documentary evidence established that a sum of Rs. 500/ - had been paid in part payment of the sale consideration. It was also observed that the vendors had executed the sale deed "after receiving the sale consideration." On these findings the suit was decreed. The Defendants had also taken a plea of fraud but that was negatived.;