- (1.) This is plaintiffs regular second appeal against the judgment and decree, of the Additional District Judge, dated 11.9.78, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant had been accepted and the suit of the plaintiff was ordered to be dismissed. Briefly put, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 30.3.1973 duly executed by the defendant after admitting its contents to be true and correct and is entitled to get. it registered and the orders of the Sub Registrar dated 28.12.1973 and the Registrar dated 27.11.1975 refusing to register the document are null and void and without jurisdiction and thus ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiff.
(2.) The defendant put in appearance and filed written statement. He contended that the agreement and the sale-deed in question are vague, indefinite, without consideration and fradulent. It was further averred that the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit as he is not a party to the alleged agreement dated 21.5.1973. It was further urged that Dharam Singh who was party to the agreement got executed a pronote for a sum of Rs. 4000/- from the defendant on 29.7.1973. The claim of the plaintiff was also resisted on the ground of maintainability of the suit in the present form; suit being not within limitation and also that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction.
(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form OPP 2. Whether the suit is within time OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file this suit OPP 5. Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell his land to the plaintiff OPD 6. If issue No. 5 is proved, whether the alleged agreement is without consideration OPD 7. Whether the defendant executed the sale deed but denied to get it registered OPD 8. If issue No. 7 is proved, whether the alleged sale-deed was got executed as a result of fraud and misrepresentation OPD. 9. Whether the orders of the Registrar and Sub Registrar dated 27.11.1975 and 28.12.73 are null and void and liable to be set aside OPP 10. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction OPP 11. Relief.;