Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) Suit of the plaintiff for permanent (Prohibitory and Mandatory) injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff in the gawara (vacant land) measuring 847 square yards situated at Village Balahkalan described in the plaint was decreed dated 14th December, 1982. Against this judgment and decree, the defendants preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the learned first appellate court. While accepting the appeal of the defendants, suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs, vide judgment and degree dated 12th March, 1983. Aggrieved from the judgment of the first appellate court, the present Regular Second Appeal was preferred in the year 1983. When the appeal came up for regular hearing on 13th August, 2003, in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was mandatory to frame a question of law arising in the appeal. Thus, vide order dated 13th August, 2003, the following order was passed, after hearing learned counsel for the parties: "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of law enunciated by the Apex court as reported in 2000(3) RCR(Civil) 292 (SC) : (2001-2)128 P.L.R. 257 (S.C.) Ramavilasom Granndhasala v. MS.S. Karayogam, and following question of law arises for consideration and is framed as under: 1. Whether non-production of vendor of a registered sale deed can adversely effect the ownership of the vendee 2. What is the effect of answer to the above question on issue No. 1 - The above question of law has been framed. Parties prays time to argue the matter. List on September 17, 2003. In order to answerthe question arising in the present case, reference to the facts which have led to the filing of the present Regular Second Appeal is necessary.
(2.) The plaintiff had filed a suit, afore-noticed, claiming that he had purchased the disputed gawara from Dina son of Jhabar vide registered sale, deed dated 22.2.1979 and ever since thereafter, he has been continuously owner in possession over the said property. Defendant Nos. I to 5 have nothing to do with the property and they are likely to obstruct and interfere with the possession of the plaintiff.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants No. 2 and 5 were given up by the plaintiff. The suit was contested by defendants No. 1, 3 and 4. They denied the title of the plaintiff as well as possession. Their stand was that they had entered in the agreement to sell gawara dated 23rd October, 1979 entered between the defendants on the one hand and Hari Singh and Chiranji Lal sons of Dina on the other hand for Rs. 2500/- and earnest money was also paid. It was pleaded that they are owner in possession and the plaintiff has no title or interest in the property.;