- (1.) Present appeal, at the instance of legal representatives of plaintiff, is directed against the concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession, was dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate Court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff was owner of the disputed land specifically described in para No.1 of the plaint with consequential relief of possession. He became owner of the disputed land on the basis of decree dated 3.10.1994 passed in civil suit titled Gurbachan Singh Vs. Lal Singh passed by Shri V.K. Bakshi, the then learned Senior Sub Judge, Karnal and suffered by his father, who had inducted the defendant as tenant over the disputed land on payment of 1/3rd batai about 30 years back. He did not make payment of 1/3rd batai to Lal Singh till 1994 and after decree to the plaintiff. He refused to make the payment of batai claiming himself to be owner of the property on the basis of sale made by Lal Singh that the defendant had been shown in the revenue record in possession of the land as Bila Lagan Bawajd Bai as the defendant disputed his tenancy rights, claimed ownership their relations of tenancy stood determined. Plaintiff's father never agreed to make the alleged sale. The defendant was requested to admit plaintiff's claim but in vain. Hence, the suit was filed. On notice, suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant.
(3.) In his written statement preliminary objections regarding maintainability; plaintiff's locus standi and cause of action to file the suit; plaintiff's estoppel, non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit being time barred were taken. The case of the defendant was that the plaintiff was not owner of the land. Civil Court Decree dated 3.10.1994 was obtained by the plaintiff after joining hands with his father to defeat the plaintiff's right. Defendant was prospective vendee having purchased it for more than 30 years back from the plaintiff's father which was reflected in the revenue record also. The sale deed was in the knowledge of the plaintiff's father and entire village right from the beginning. Even otherwise, defendant also became owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession. Father of the plaintiff vide oral agreement after accepting the sale consideration had agreed to get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of the defendant. So, defendant was in possession of the land as owner. Defendant filed a counter claim also claiming declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land. In the alternative he was prospective vendee and his possession was protected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and the civil court decree dated 03.10.1994 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the defendant.;