Raj Mohan Singh, J. - (1.) Plaintiff -society is in regular second appeal against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below dismissing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the suit property was purchased by it from defendant No. 2 vide sale deed dated 4.3.1958. Defendant No. 1 sold the suit land in favour of defendant No. 3 vide sale deed No. 1540 dated 29.10.1957. Plaintiff also alleged that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 in respect of khasra No. 434 (15 Bigha 6 Biswa) is wrong, illegal and liable to be set aside. Entries in favour of defendant No. 3 in the revenue record were also claimed to be wrong and liable to be corrected in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff further alleged that the possession was duly delivered to it at the time of execution of sale deed and plaintiff -society is continuing as owner of the suit land. Defendant No. 3, on the basis of wrong entries in the revenue record, is bent upon to alienate and to create charge over the suit property and has also threatened to oust the plaintiff from the suit land.
(3.) Defendants contested the suit on all counts. The nomenclature of the society was denied nor Ram Chander was admitted to be President of the same. Defendants alleged that society never came into existence nor it was renewed under Indian Societies Act. President of the society Ram Chander has no right to file the suit. The resolution of the society for filing the suit was claimed to be forged. Defendants further alleged that defendant No. 1 was owner in possession of the land measuring 73 Bigha 8 Biswa. Factum of execution of sale deed dated 4.3.1958 was denied. Mutation No. 369 in respect of suit land was also denied in favour of the plaintiff -society. Defendants also alleged that the land measuring 15 Bigha 6 Biswa bearing khasra No. 434 was sold to defendant No. 3 by defendant No. 1 vide sale deed No. 1540 dated 29.10.1957, therefore question of alienating the same vide sale deed dated 4.3.1958 in favour of plaintiff -society does not arise. Defendants No. 1 and 2 were not entitled to alienate the property in favour of plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 has been continuing as owner in possession of the land bearing khasra No. 434.;