- (1.) The defendants are in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court vide which that of the trial Court was reversed in a suit for possession filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Briefly the facts are that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a suit for possession claiming themselves to be owners of the property in dispute. They pleaded that a suit for pre-emption pertaining to the suit land was decreed in their favour on 29.1.1960 after which they were delivered the possession of the land and were continuing as such thereafter. About 31/2 years back, the appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 dispossessed respondent Nos. 1 to 3- the plaintiffs from the suit land. It was further pleaded that sale deed, if any, got registered by father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs in favour of the appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is null and void as the father was not the owner of the property in dispute whereas the stand of the appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was that they had purchased the land from Kapur Singh vide registered sale-deed dated 23.11.1976 and were put in possession thereafter. Prior to that Kapur Singh was in possession of the suit land. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit land. The appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are bonafide purchasers of the land for consideration. In the revenue record respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs were never shown to be owner in possession of the suit land. Kapur Singh and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs were living together and having a common mess. From the sale proceeds of land in question, Kapur Singh had purchased much more land at different place in the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs. Meaning thereby, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs had utilised the sale proceeds of the land, the possession of which is being claimed. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the land in dispute and the defendants are in illegal possession thereof OPP 2. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 3 have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession OPD 3. Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable 4. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit 5. Whether notice under Section 79 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act was necessary before filing the present suit OPD 6. Whether the decree dated 29-10-1980 was obtained by the plaintiffs in collusion with their father and for that reason is not binding upon the defendant 7. Whether the defendants No. 1 to 3 are bonafide purchaser from Kapur Singh father of the plaintiffs OPD 8. Relief."
(2.) While recording its findings on all the issues, the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs was dismissed. In appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs, the learned Lower Appellate Court while setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, decreed the suit filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs subject to the condition that the decree shall be executable on payment of Rs. 40,000/- to the appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 together with expenses incurred on saledeed. Rs. 40,000/- was the sale consideration paid by the appellantsdefendant Nos. 1 to 3 for purchasing the land in question from Kapur Singh, father of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree, appellants- defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are before this Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants sought to assail the judgment and decree of the learned Lower Appellate Court by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "i) Whether judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of trial court is perverse ii) Whether defendant-appellant is bonafide purchaser in view of the admitted fact that mutation in respect of land in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents was refused on 17.5.1962 and thereafter they allowed Kapoor Singh their father to continue to be as owner in the revenue record till 23.11.1976, when the impugned sale deed was registered in favour of the appellant iii) Whether the sale Ex. D1 attracts the provision of Section 196 of Indian Contract Act, 1878, as it stands proved that sale consideration received by Kapur Singh was applied for purchase of much more land measuring 56 kanals in the name of plaintiff-respondent 1 to 3 -;