R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) UNSUCCESSFUL plaintiffs Sukha Singh and Jassa Singh have filed the present regular second appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karnal, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 18.2.2000 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, who dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants for declaration as prayed for.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale-deeds dated 11.6.1991 and 24.6.1991 executed by defendant No. 3 Hardayal Singh in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and also as a consequential relief sought permanent injunction restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs or from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and also from alienating the suit land. The plaintiffs alleged that they have become owners in possession of 43 kanals 18 marlas land being 1/2 share of 87 kanals 12 marlas being 12th share of 79 kanals 4 marlas and 7 marlas being 1/2 share of 13 marlas of the land situated in village Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, Distt. Karnal vide jamabandi for the year 1982-83 and mutation No. 6980, sanctioned on 17.2.1988 on the basis of civil court decree dated 30.3.1991 passed in civil suit No. 220 of 1990 title Sukha Singh and another v. Hardayal Singh suffered by defendant No. 3. According to the plaintiffs, defendant No. 3 sold away 34 kanals 4 marlas land being 684/1584 share of 79 kanlas 4 marlas, land measuring 9 kanals 13 marlas i.e. measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas being 108/1584 share of 79 kanals 4 marlas and 3 kanals 19 marlas being 1/2 share of 7 kanals 18 marlas, land measuring 6 marlas being 1/2 share of 13 marlas, situated in village Assandh, Tehsil Assandh, District Karnal had been sold vide two separate sale-deeds dated 11.6.1991 and 24.6.1991 for a consideration of Rs. 1,92,500/- and Rs. 55,000/- in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 and the same were duly registered before the Sub-Registrar, Assandh. These two sale-deeds have been challenged on the grounds that the defendant No. 3 had no right to sell away the land. The plaintiffs were in actual cultivating possession of the land measuring 43 kanals 18 marlas prior to March, 1991 without any sort of interference or disturbance of anybody. The defendants No. 1 and 2 under the garb of impugned sale-deeds wanted to take forcible possession and they were asked not to do so, but to no effect. Hence the suit. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The suit was contested only by defendants No. 1 and 2, who pleaded that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit; that they are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration and are being protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further pleaded by the defendants No. 1 and 2 that an agreement to sell was entered on 21.2.1990 by defendant No. 3 with Rajwant Singh son of Pala Singh, who used to be the father of defendants No. 1 and 2 and it was mentioned in the agreement that he was at liberty to get the sale- deed executed in whose favour he likes. So, the impugned sale-deeds were executed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendant No. 2 Hardayal Singh is a mischievous person. He connived with the plaintiffs and filed civil Suit No. 220 of 1990 in the Court of Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Panipat. Hardayal Singh abstained from that suit. He was proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiffs got ex-parte decree in their favour. The defendants No. 1 and 2 got the sale-deed executed being ignorant of the said litigation. The plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their act and conduct. The suit is also not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The said ex-parte decree obtained by the plaintiffs against Hardayal Singh is nothing but an act of connivance between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3. Defendant No. 2 was minor at the time of filing the present suit and the suit against him could not proceed according to law. With this defence, defendants No. 1 and 2 prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed re-joinder/replication to the written statement of defendants No. 1 and 2 in which they reiterated their allegations made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the sale deeds dated 11.6.91 and 24.6.91 respectively executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 are illegal, null and void, ineffective, inoperative, without jurisdiction and not binding upon the ownership and possessory rights of the plaintiffs qua land measuring 34K-4M, land measuring 9K-13M, land measuring 3K-19M, and land measuring 0K-6M on the grounds mentioned in the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for whereby the defendants have no right to illegally dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit property and they have further no right to alienate the same ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred under Order 2 Rule 4 CPC ? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad on account of insufficiency of stamp fee ? OPD 7. Relief." ;