AMIT RAWAL, J. - (1.) THE appellant -plaintiff is in appeal against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of plot measuring 10 -1/2 marlas (313 sq.yards) as per the plan attached in respect of the revenue record, the sale deed dated 1.6.1998 allegedly executed and registered by the appellant -plaintiff to be declared as forged, fabricated, null and void, has been declined.
(2.) THE case set out by the appellant -plaintiff was that he purchased a plot measuring 313 sq.yards mentioned above and since the purchase of the property, he is owner in possession of the same. He constructed the boundary wall, one shop and filled the foundation of four shops in the aforementioned plot. In one of the shop, the business of property dealing is being run by Harsh Kumar attorney of the appellant - plaintiff under the name and style of M/s Goodwill Property Dealers.
(3.) THE appellant -plaintiff acquired the knowledge of the alleged/disputed execution of the sale deed dated 1.6.1998 in the year 2001 when he obtained certified copy of the jamabandi on 25.6.2001 in order to dispose of the plot. On examining the same, it was found that somebody else impersonated him and allegedly forged and fabricated the sale deed purported to have been signed by him. The grounds taken in the plaint, on which the sale deed was sought to be set -aside, are as under: - i) The sale deed did not bear the photograph and signatures of the appellant -plaintiff; ii) Appellant -plaintiff never appeared before the Sub -Registrar for the execution and registration of the alleged sale deed; iii) Someone else by impersonating as Vinod Kumar (plaintiff ) had appeared. Sale deed, thus, was as a result of fraud, forgery and impersonation; iv) Plaintiff did not sell the property to the defendant; v) The fakeness of the alleged sale deed was apparent as it did not contain the complete address of the defendant." ;