R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal and has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1984 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Ludhiana who dismissed the appeal of the defendant -appellant No. 1 Sh. Ram Singh by affirming the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1981 passed by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Ludhiana who decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent Bant Dass alias Bant Singh son of Nasib Dass alias Nasib Chand, for declaration as described in para No. 26 of the judgment of the trial Court which is reproduced as follows: - "In view of my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff must succeed. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land measuring 66 kanals 4 marlas as mentioned in sub -head (c) of the head note of the plaint, that he is owner of land measuring OK. -10M and 35 -02 -2/3M as fully detailed in sub -head(a) and (b) of the head note of the plaint for joint possession of land measuring OK -30M and 35K -2 -2/3 Marias as fully detailed in sub -head (a) and (b) of the head note of the plaint, and that sale deeds dated 4.6.1975 registered on 29.7.1975 and 13.8.1975 are illegal, void, fictitious, without consideration and brought about by fraud and did not affect the right of the plaintiffs and equitable mortgage created by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 in respect of the suit land is not binding against the rights of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The plaintiff is directed to pay court fee of Rs. 3134.60. Copy of decree sheet be sent to the Collector for recovery of the amount of Court fee. File be consigned. Decree -sheet be prepared."
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Sh. Bant Dass alias Bant Singh filed a suit in the form of pauperis seeking declaration that he is the owner to the extent of land measuring 0 -10 Marias; land measuring 35K - 3 2/3 marlas and owner is possession of the land measuring 66 Kanals 4 marlas fully detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in villages Thankarwal and Bahiromunarul. It was further prayed by the plaintiff that the sale of the suit land made vide alleged sale deeds on 4.6.1975 is illegal void, factious and has been the result of the fraud impersonation without consideration and thus, the said sale deeds do not bind or affect the rights of the plaintiff. Similarly, equitable mortgage created by Ram Singh defendant -appellant in favour of defendant No. 4 State Bank of India does not affect the rights of the plaintiff as defendant No. 1 could not pass any title upon defendant No. 4. By way of consequential relief, the plaintiff prayed that a decree for joint possession be passed in his favour with respect to the land in question which was allegedly claimed by defendant No. 1.
(3.) THE case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that he was blind and the property in dispute was agricultural land measuring 0 -10 marlas, 35K -3 -2/3 Marias and 66 Kanals 4 Marias of which he is the owner. Out of this land the plaintiff is in possession of the land masuring 66 Kanals 4 marlas as mentioned in sub head (c) of para No. 1 of the plaint whereas the possession of the land 0 -10 marlas and 35 Kanals 3 -2/3 Marias has been taken forcibly by defendant No. 1 during the pendency of the suit. The land situated in village Thakarwal and described in sub -head (a) and (d) of the plaint was being cultivated by the plaintiff through his tenant Sukhdev Singh who is still is possession. The land was with cultivation with the said tenant on Chakota for a sum of Rs. 2600/ - per year pertaining to the share of the plaintiff. Chakota up to Rabi 1977 was paid by Sh. Sukhdev Singh to the plaintiff, the land in dispute in village Bhairomuna is under the cultivation with the plaintiff through his tenant. Bant Singh and Tehal Singh son of Sant Ram are also paying the Chakota to the plaintiff.;