- (1.) These two appeals have been filed by defendant Madan Singh under Section 96 of CPC being aggrieved of the judgment and decree passed against him dated 28/1/1986 by which the civil suit no. 76/80 Smt. Suraj Kanwar vs. Madan Singh filed for cancellation of sale deed dated 22/4/1958 has been decreed by the learned trial court of ADJ, Raisinghnagar, Sriganganagar. The connected appeal No. 478/2006 is directed against the judgment and decree of the same court in civil suit no. 15/99 Rajendra Singh and others vs. Madan Singh by which the learned trial court decreed the suit for possession in favour of the plaintiff-respondents holding that the plaintiffs were in possession prior to 11/4/1975 for two years prior to the said date of the land in question situated at 26 GB, Muraba No. 14 and 39 (New No. 15 and 37) and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to receive possession of the land in question from the Receiver appointed in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The fate of connected appeal no. 478/2006 would abide by the First Appeal no. 16/1986 regarding cancellation of sale deed and, therefore, facts as given in the judgment under appeal dated 28/1/1986 while decreeing the suit no. 76/80 Smt. Suraj Kanwar vs. Madan Singh are stated here under.
(3.) The plaintiff Suraj Kanwar w/o Thakur Raghuveer Singh executed the sale deed on 22/4/1958 in favour of defendant Madan Singh, her cousin ( son of her maternal uncle) and by the said sale deed dated 22/4/1958 for a consideration of Rs.5000/- 24 bighas of land in Square No. 39 in Chak No. 26 GB Tehsil Anoopgarh was transferred in favour of said defendant and possession of the said 24 bighas was also handed over to him. The said sale deed was registered on 30/4/1958 with Sub Registrar, Anoopgarh. The suit for cancellation of this sale deed was filed by the plaintiff Suraj Kanwar on 6/1/1978 after 20 years. The plaintiff Suraj Kanwar claimed that the sale of land in question vide registered sale deed dated 22/4/1958 was a 'benami' transaction and sale deed was without any consideration and such sale deed was executed in favour of defendant Madan Singh, who being her relative urged that such sale deed in his favour would increase his status and he would be able to take loan against such land for his business. The plaintiff was never in the need of money and, therefore, no such consideration was taken and upon disputes arising, in proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C., the possession of the said land was handed over to the Receiver, which continues to be with him even now. The plaintiff stated that in the letter dated 6/9/1964 written by defendant Madan Singh, he had admitted that the said sale was 'benami' transaction and the plaintiff was the real owner of the said land and similarly wife of defendant Madan Singh, Smt. Gunraj Kanwar had also admitted in her letter dated 21/12/1967 that plaintiff was the real owner of the said land.;