- (1.) Deficiency in court fee has since been made good. The application is, therefore, allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 1958. C of 2011 For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of one day in filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 724 of 2011 Defendant No. 2 Sun Raj Software Private Limited has filed the instant second appeal after the Defendants i.e. Appellant and Defendant No. 1 Jaswant Saini Respondent No. 2 failed in both the courts below.
(2.) Suit was filed by Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff Ram Saran against Respondent No. 2 and Appellant alleging that Plaintiff is co-owner in joint possession of agricultural land measuring 2639 kanals 6 marlas out of which the Plaintiff's share is to the extent of 8271/2 marlas. Defendant No. 1 Jaswant Saini alleging himself to be attorney of the Plaintiff executed sale deed on behalf of Plaintiff for 840 marlas in favour of Defendant No. 2. However, the Plaintiff never appointed Defendant No. 1 as his attorney. The alleged power of attorney dated 24.1.1996 was never executed by the Plaintiff. Consequently, sale deed dated 3.5.2000 executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 and consequent mutation No. 1212 dated 8.6.2000 are also illegal and null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is still owner in joint possession of his share in the joint land. It was also alleged that sale deed was registered at Mumbai but it could not be legally or validly registered there as the suit land is situated in village Ghata Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon and therefore, the sale deed could be registered only by Sub Registrar, Sohna. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner in joint possession of his share measuring 827/1/2 marlas in 2639 kanals 6 marlas joint land and alleged sale deed dated 3.5.2000 and mutation No. 1212 on the basis of the said sale deed are liable to be ignored and are not binding on the Plaintiff and the revenue record is liable to be corrected accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff. Permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 2 from further alienating the suit land and from interfering in possession of the Plaintiff thereof was also prayed.
(3.) Defendants broadly denied the plaint allegations. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff vide agreement dated 24.1.1996 agreed to sell the suit land to Defendant No. 2 and Lunar Finance Company @ Rs. 2,90,000/- per acre and received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 14,24,000/- from time to time from the said vendees and also delivered possession of the suit land to them at the time of execution of the agreement in part performance thereof and since then they are in possession of the suit land. It was pleaded that the Plaintiff had also executed special power of attorney on 24.1.1996 in favour of Defendant No. 1 who accordingly executed sale deed dated 3.5.2000 of the suit land in favour of Defendant No. 2. The said sale deed is also legal and valid. The sale deed could not be registered in Sohna because of some politicians and influential persons who got some restrictions on the registering authority and managed unlawful notification from the Government that sale deed cannot be registered outside the sub district where the property is situated. Various other pleas were also raised.;