Rajasthan High Court
Sanwar Mal Lohia vs Smt.Ghanshyam Kanwar And Ors on 12 December, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No.114/1981
1. Sanwar Mal Lohia son of Shri Bhagwandas Lohia resident of Meera Marg, Bani
Park, Jaipur (deceased)
2. Indra Singh Kanwariya through Ganganagar Shugar Mills, Jaipur
2/1 Shafi Mohammad son of Shri Nasi Khan (deceased).
2/2 Aliouddin son of Shri Salimuddin, resident of Hathroi Basti, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
3 Virendra Kumar Jain son of Late Shri Shivram Jain, resident of Near Police
Memorial, Jaipur.
4. Surendra Kumar Jain (deceased) through legal representatives:-
4/1 Smt. Prabha Jain wife of late Shri Surendra Kumar (deceased)
4/2 Mradul son of late Shri Surendra Kumar, resident of 3, Shiv Sadan,
Gavin Marg, Near Police Memorial, Jaipur- 302004.
4/3 Smt. Dimpi Jain wife of Shri Rajeev Jain, resident of KJ-132, New Kavi
Nagar, Gaziabad (U.P.).
5. Smt. Kamla Devi
6. Smt. Indumati Devi
Both are resident of D-11, Heera marg, Skaipuri, Jaipur City Jaipur.
7. Smt. Sheela Devi wife of Shri Shyama Prasad Sharma, resident of Coubats.
8. Shri Virendra Kumar Sharma, B.D.O. Collectorate, Jaipur.
9. Kamal Swaroop Kaushik, resident of near ESI Dispensary, NBC link Road,
Jaipur.
10. Hiralal Gupta of Western Railway, Jaipur.
11. Garbwal Samiti through Kundan Singh Rawat, President of Garbwati Samiti,
Jaipur.
----Plaintiff/Appellants
Versus
1. Smt. Ghanshyam Kanwar (deceased)
2. Smt. Abu Musur (deceased)
3. Smt. Sajja Kanwar
All wives of late Shri Rav Bhagwat Singh, resident of Duni House, Chookri No.
Theekana Jaipur City, Jaipur.
4. Smt. Surendra Kanwar wife of Shri Mohan Singh resident of Kanota House,
Jaipur City,
5. Smt. Gangasahai (deceased)
5/1 Smt. Kesar Devi wife of late Shri Gangasahai (deceased)
5/2 Shri Maendra Vijay Gupta,
5/3 Shri Surendra Vijay,
5/4 Shri Devendra Vijay,
5/5 Raghvendra @ Rajendra Vijay (deceased) deleted.
5/6 Smt. Vijay Prabhu.
5/2 to 5/6 are sons and daughter of late Shri Gangasahai, resident of Mohallah,
Godiwallan Jat ke Kua ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Purani Basti, Jaipur.
----Defendant/Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajat Ranjan
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 11/11/2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : December _12th, 2022
(Downloaded on 13/12/2022 at 12:18:51 AM)
(2 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
BY THE COURT:
1. Appellant-plaintiffs have preferred this first appeal arising out
of a civil suit No.69/1970 filed by appellant-plaintiff way back on
8-8-1970 seeking declaration of ownership and permanent
injunction in respect of land detailed in para 7 of the plaint, which
has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19-8-1980, by
the Additional District Judge, No.1, Jaipur City.
2. The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that the
appellant plaintiff instituted the present civil suit inter alia claiming
that he is a property dealer and in the month of May-June, 1965,
Rao Bhagwat Singh, the erstwhile Jagirdar Thikana Dooni, made a
proposal to him that his house and land situated in Chaukri
Modikhana Jaipur has been acquired by the Jaipur State and
according to the award of the Land Acquisition Officer passed in
the year 1944, in lieu of acquisition, some amount in cash has
already been paid but land measuring 7133 yards in Jaipur within
vicinity of 10 miles was yet to be allotted, therefore, Rao Bhagwat
Singh proposed to the plaintiff to purchase such land. Plaintiff
averred that after such proposal between him and Rao Bhagwat
Singh, an agreement was entered into to sell the proposed land
for a consideration of Rs.16,000/-, and plaintiff paid Rs.8000/- at
the time of executing the agreement and remaining amount
Rs.8000/-was agreed to be paid after issuing order for allotment
of land in favour of Rao Bhagwat Singh. Plaintiff averred that one
power of attorney was executed in favour of plaintiff to pursue the
issue of allotment of land and thereafter the State government
decided to allot the land to Rao Bhagwat Singh. Plaintiff stated
that he paid remaining amount of Rs.8000/- to Rao Bhagwat
(3 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
Singh, and he wrote an application dated 29-8-1966 to Tehsildar
Jaipur to issue patta of land in the name of plaintiff. In pursuance
thereof, under instructions of the Tehsildar Jaipur, possession of
land was delivered to plaintiff on 11-10-1966 and patta was issued
on 31-10-1966 in the name of plaintiff.
It has been averred in the plaint that defendants 1,2 and 3
are widows of Rao Bhagwat Singh and defendant No.4 is his
daughter. The defendant No.5 is the person who deals with and
takes care of properties of Thikana Dooni. It was stated that Rao
Bhagwat Singh passed away on 25-11-1967, and that after death
of Rao Bhagwat Singh, disputes arose amongst surviving natural
heirs defendants No.1, 2, 3 and 4. The defendant No.5, who was
dealing and taking care of properties of Thikana Dooni, made a
complaint to the Collector Jaipur in respect of land in question of
Thikana Dooni that patta dated 31-10-1966 has wrongly been
allotted in favour of plaintiff and that property belongs to Thikana.
On such complaint, the Collector vide order dated 27-5-1969
cancelled the patta dated 31-10-1966 issued in favour of plaintiff
and directed to issue fresh patta in the name of legal heirs of Rao
Bhagwat Singh. Plaintiff challenged the said order dated 27-5-
1969 by way of filing review petition, but the same was dismissed
on 30-4-1970. Thereafter the plaintiff instituted the present civil
suit on 8-8-1970 stating therein that the land in question is in
possession of plaintiff and plaintiff be declared owner of the land
and defendants be restrained not to dispossess the plaintiff from
the land in question.
The suit was amended from time to time and plaintiffs No.2
to 10, being subsequent purchasers were added, but it may be
(4 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
noted here that the plaintiffs no where sought any relief to quash
the order dated 27-5-1969 passed by Collector cancelling the
patta issued in favour of plaintiff and for issuing patta in favour of
Thikana Dooni and the order dated 30-4-1970 on review petition
affirming the order dated 27-5-1969.
3. The suit was contested by defendant No.5. He filed written
statement. The agreement to sell alleged to be made by Rao
Bhagwat Singh in favour of plaintiff, in respect of land which was
proposed to be allotted to him in lieu of acquisition of property of
Thikana was categorically denied. He denied that Rao Bhagwat
Singh ever wrote any letter dated 29-8-1966 to the Tehsildar
Jaipur to issue patta in favour of plaintiff. It was admitted that Rao
Bhagwat Singh died on 25-11-1967, but it was stated that before
his death he withdrew the power of attorney in favour of plaintiff,
cancelled the agreement and instructed the defendant No.5 to get
possession of land in question. In pursuance thereof, the
defendant No.5 moved an application before the Tehsildar. Such
application came before the Collector, and on such application the
order was passed to issue patta in favour of Thikana Dooni, but
since thereafter Rao Bhagwat Singh passed away and the plaintiff
having connivance with few persons, got issue patta on 31-10-
1966 in his own name from the Tehsildar. The defendant
contended that in order to cancel the patta issued in the name of
plaintiff, he persuaded the matter before the Collector Jaipur, and
there upon an enquiry was ordered. During enquiry, the Tehsildar
Jaipur recorded statement of plaintiff and submitted his report.
Thereafter, the collector passed the order dated 27-5-1969
(5 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
cancelling the patta dated 31-10-1966 issued by the Tehsildar in
the name of plaintiff and to issue patta in the name of Thikana
Dooni. Plaintiff challenged the said order by way of review
petition, but the same was dismissed on 30-4-1970. The patta has
been issued by the Collector in favour of defendants, being heirs
widows and daughter of Rao Bhagwat Singh and they have
transferred the property to defendant No.5.
It was contended that plaintiff obtained patta 31-10-1966
with collusion from the Tehsildar Jaipur, who had no authority to
issue patta in respect of property of Thikana Dooni and on the
basis of such patta, plaintiff executed sale-deed in favour of
several persons detailed out in para 19 of the written statement.
It was contended that neither the plaintiff has any possession nor
has any right, title or interest in the suit property on the date of
filing the suit, and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
After filing written statement, the plaintiff impleaded the
subsequent purchasers of land in question as party, plaintiffs No.2
to 10, and amended plaint was filed.
4. On the basis of pleadings of parties the trial court framed
issues:
First, Whether plaintiff No.1 and Rao Bhagwat Singh entered
into an agreement that pursuant to award of 1944 the land
was to be awarded was to be sold to plaintiff No.1 for a
consideration of Rs.16000?
Second, Whether if issue No.1 is decided in favour of
plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 has paid Rs.8000/- on the date of
agreement and remaining Rs.8000/- on different dates?
Third, Whether Rao Bhagwat Singh moved an application on
29-8-1966 before Tehsildar Jaipur that since he has agreed
to sell the land to be allotted him to plaintiff No.1, therefore,
the land to be allotted to Rai Bhagwat Singh be allotted to
plaintiff No.1, patta be issued and possession of the same be
handed over to plaintiff No.1?
(6 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
Fourth, Whether Tehsildar Jaipur had no authority to issue
patta dated 31-10-1966 in favour of plaintiff No.1 and to
hand over the possession on 11-10-1966?
Fifth, Whether Collector Jaipur had no authority to issue
order dated 27-5-1969 for cancelling the patta issued by
Tehsildar Jaipur, and if Collector had done so, what would be
the legal effect?
Sixth, Whether plaintiff No.1 on the date of filing the suit
was owner of the land in issue and was in possession of the
same, and if so, what would be the effect?
Tenth, Whether Rao Bhagwat Singh legally transferred his
rights in favour of plaintiff, if so, what would be the effect o
suit?
Twelth, whether due to selling the land to different persons
in plot before filing the suit, those persons can file the suit
jointly?
Thirteenth, whether on date of filing the suit value of the
land was not below Rs.75,000/-, therefore the court fee paid
by plaintiff is short, and the suit is not maintainable?
Fifteenth, Whether without quashing orders of Collector
dated 27-5-1969 and 30-4-1970, the suit is maintainable?
Sixteenth, Relief?
5. Plaintiff examined twelve witnesses and exhibited ten
documents. Defendants examined seven witnesses and exhibited
16 documents.
During course of arguments on request of counsel for
parties, issues No.7,8,9,11 and 14 were dropped vide order dated
5-8-1980, being unwarranted.
6. The trial court considered oral and documentary evidence led
by both parties and dismissed the suit vide judgment impugned.
6.1 Issues No.1,2 and 3, regarding agreement between
plaintiff Sanwarmal and Rao Bhagwat singh, payment of
consideration and moving application for allotment of land before
Tehsildar, were considered conjointly and considering oral and
documentary evidence of both parties decided three issues in
favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
(7 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
6.2 Issue No.4 regarding authority of thesildar to issue
patta (Ex.6) and handing over possession of land, considering oral
and documentary evidence it was concluded that patta could be
issued to Sanwarmal being power of attorney of Rao Bhagwat
Singh and not in personal capacity of Sanwarmal. As also
possession of the land could not be handed over to Sanwarmal in
his personal capacity. Accordingly the issue was decided against
plaintiff.
6.3 Issue No.5 regarding authority of Collector to pass the
order dated 27-5-1969 cancelling the patta, the trial court
considering the fact that the matter of issuing the patta in the
name of Sanwarmal on complaint by Ganga Sahai was enquired
into by the Collector and it was found that order of the
Government was to issue patta in favour of Rao Sahab Duni and
not in the name of Sanwarmal, therefore, the Collector has not
committed illegality in cancelling the patta vide order dated 27-5-
1969 and decided the issue against plaintiff.
6.4 Issue No.6 regarding the plaintiff Sanwarmal was owner
and in possession of the land on the date of filing the suit, the trial
court considering the fact that the document of assigning rights by
Rao Bhagwat Singh to plaintiff Sanwarmal was not a registered
document, therefore the plaintiff Sanwarmal was not owner of the
land. According to admission of plaintiff Sanwarmal himself he was
not in possession of land as he had already sold the land. As such
the issue was decided against plaintiffs.
6.5 Issue No.10 regarding transferring of rights by Rao
Bhagwat Singh to plaintiff, the trial court held that although there
was an agreement between Rao Bhagwat Singh and plaintiff, but
(8 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
the documents were not registered as such rights were not
transferred legally. As such the issue was decided against plaintiff.
6.6 Issue No.12 regarding filing the suit by plaintiffs jointly,
the trial court concluded that since the land was sold to them by
plaintiff No.1, therefore they were entitled to file the suit.
6.7 Issue No.13 regarding valuation of the suit, the
plaintiffs deposited the due court fees.
6.8 Issue No.15 regarding maintainability of the suit
without quashing orders dated 27-5-1969 and 30-4-1970, the trial
court concluded that orders passed have been held legal and
thereafter vide vide order dated 6-5-1971 land has also been
allotted to legal heirs of Rao Bhagwat Singh (defendants No.1 to
4) and patta (Ex.A-14) has been issued. As such the suit was held
not maintainable.
Consequently, the suit filed by plaintiffs was dismissed vide
impugned judgment and decree dated 19-8-1980.
7. Hence the first appeal challenging the judgment and decree.
8. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned
judgment and decree as also other material available on record.
Issues No.1,2 and3:
9. This court is deciding issues No.1,2 and 3 afresh, as per
evidence on record exercising its powers under Order 41 Rule 31
CPC, as findings recorded by the trial court have been noticed to
be based merely on basis of surmises and conjectures and without
there being any cogent and convincing evidence to decide all three
issues in favour of plaintiff.
10. Having heard counsel for appellants and perusing the
material available on record, this court finds that the learned trial
(9 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
court has decided issues No.1,2 and 3 conjointly and has
concluded that an agreement was executed between plaintiff and
Rao Bhagwat Singh in respect of land in question and plaintiff paid
Rs.16,000/- in instalments on various dates. Rao Bhagwat Singh
thereafter wrote an application on 29-8-1966 to Tehsildar Jaipur to
allot patta of land in question, which was to be allotted to Thikana
Dooni in lieu of acquiring properties of Thikana Dooni in the name
of plaintiff. Such fact finding recorded by the trial court has been
on the basis of oral statements of plaintiff Pw.5 Sanwar Mal, Pw.6
Vishvendra Pal Singh, Pw.7 Indra Singh, Pw.8 Jagdish Bihari and
Pw.9 Jai Bihari Lal and also placing reliance on application dated
29-8-1966 (Ex.2) and few other documents Possession letter 11-
10-1966 (Ex.3), Patta 31-10-1966 (Ex.6) and written statements
of defendants No.1,3 and 4 in civil suit for partition filed by
defendant No.2 (Ex.7,8, 9 and 10) have also been considered.
11. This is not in dispute that as per pleadings of plaint a written
agreement is said to be arrived at between plaintiff and Rao
Bhagwat Singh, but neither any date of such agreement is
indicated in plaint, nor any such agreement has been placed on
record. It is not the case of plaintiff that such agreement has been
lost and contents of the agreement would be proved by adducing
secondary evidence that too by way of oral evidence. The issue in
respect of contents of agreement for sell of the land which could
have been allotted to Thikana Dooni in lieu of acquired properties
of Thikana Dooni for a consideration of Rs.16,000/- could have
been proved only by way of producing the original document of
agreement on record, or at least copy of agreement as secondary
evidence. In absence of production of the document of agreement
(10 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
to sell on record, oral evidence to prove execution of agreement;
contents of agreement is not admissible in law. Learned trial court
has committed illegality in not adverting to Sections 91 and 92 of
the Evidence Act, which read thus:
91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other
disposition of property reduced to form of documents.--
When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other
disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a
document, and in all cases in which any matter is required
by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no
evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such
contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such
matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of
its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is
admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.
Exception 1.--when a public officer is required by law to be
appointed in writing, and when it is shown that any
particular person has acted as such officer, the writing by
which he is appointed need not be proved.
Exception 2.-- Wills (admitted to probate in India may be
proved by the probate.
Explanation 1. This section applies equally to cases in which
the contracts grants or dispositions of property referred to
are contained in one document, and to cases in which they
are contained in more documents than one.
Explanation 2.-- Where there are more originals than one,
one original only need be proved.
Explanation 3.- The statement, in any document whatever,
of a fact other than the facts referred to in this section, shall
not preclude the admission of oral evidence as to the same
fact.
92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement. When the
terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of
property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the
form of a document, have proved according to the last
section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement
shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such
instrument or their representatives in interest, for the
purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting
from, its terms:
Proviso (1) Any fact may be proved which would invalidate
any document, or which would entitle any person to any
decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation,
illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any
contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or
mistake in fact or law:
Proviso (2) The existence of any separate oral agreement as
to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is
not inconsistent with its terms, may be proved. In
considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court
(11 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
shall have regard to the degree of formality of the
document:
Proviso (3) The existence of any separate oral agreement,
constituting a condition to the attaching of any obligation
under any such contract, grant or disposition of property,
may be proved:
Proviso (4) The existence of any distinct subsequent oral
agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or
disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in
which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by
law required to be in writing, or has been registered
according to the law in force for the time being as to the
registration of documents;
Proviso (5) Any usage or custom by which incidents not
expressly mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to
contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not
be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of
the contract:
Proviso (6) Any fact may be proved which shows in what
manner the language of a document is related to existing
facts.
12. Therefore, without producing the document of agreement to
sell, such agreement cannot be held proved. Further, it is settled
proposition of law that in respect of immovable property, the issue
of money transaction for property having value more than
Rs.100/- could be evidenced only by way of registered instrument.
In the present case, the plaintiff claims to have purchased
property by way of an agreement for sale consideration of
Rs.16,000/-, but neither such agreement has been placed on
record nor such agreement was a registered document. Therefore,
there is no evidence to decide the issue No.1 in favour of plaintiff
and the learned trial court has erred in deciding the issue No.1 in
favour plaintiff.
13. As far as the payment of Rs.16,000/- is concerned, there is
no written receipt to prove such money transaction. The trial court
has placed reliance on application form dated 29-8-1966 (Ex.2)
alleged to be written by Rao Bhagwat Singh to the Tehsildar
(12 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
Jaipur. On basis of such application it has been assumed by the
trial court that entire sale consideration would have been received
by Rao Bhagwat Singh and thereafter he wrote such an
application. Firstly, this application itself is disputed and has been
denied by defendant No.5, and secondly, signatures of Rao
Bhagwat Singh on this application are also in dispute. Trial court
has relied upon statements of Notary Public (Pw.8) and Advocate
Jai Bihari Lal (Pw.9) to assume signatures on the application to be
of Rao Bhagwat Singh. The persons are in collusion with plaintiff.
Such fact finding by the trial court is erroneous and based on
surmises and conjectures, as merely on basis of application dated
29-8-1966, no such presumption should have been drawn for
execution of the agreement to sell by Rao Bhagwat Singh in favour
of plaintiff and accepting the full sale amount Rs.16000/- in cash.
Reliance by the trial court on written statements (Ex.8, 9 and 10)
inter se between defendant No.2 and 1,3&4 is least helpful to
prove the transaction of money between plaintiff and Rao Bhagwat
Singh. Therefore, findings on issue No.2 are erroneous and in
absence of sufficient evidence, issue No.2 is decided against
plaintiff.
14. As far as issue No.3 is concerned, this court finds that
application dated 29-8-1966 alleged to be written by Rao Bhagwat
Singh is not proved by any cogent and convincing evidence, the
signatures of Rao Bhagwat Singh on this application are disputed,
however, it is undisputed fact that the Tehsildar Jaipur issued patta
dated 31-10-1966 (Ex.6) in favour of plaintiff, therefore, issue
No.3 is decided in this manner.
(13 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
Issues No.4,5 and 6:
15. All three issues (No.1,2,&3) have already been decided
against plaintiff as discussed herein above that agreement to sale
has neither been placed on record nor such agreement was
registered document, therefore, on the basis of such agreement to
sale, no title stands transferred to the plaintiff. It has come on
record that Tehsildar Jaipur was not authorised to issue patta
dated 31-10-1966 in favour of the plaintiff, and therefore, on the
complaint by defendant No.5 the Collector held an enquiry and in
that enquiry statements of the plaintiff were also recorded.
Thereafter, the Collector vide its order dated 27-5-1969 has
cancelled the Patta dated 31-10-1966 and directed to issue fresh
Patta in the name of Thikana Dooni. As far as delivery of
possession to plaintiff is concerned, from possession letter dated
11-10-1966 (Ex.3) itself it is clear that possession was delivered
to the plaintiff being power of attorney of Rao Bhagwat Singh.
After cancellation of patta of plaintiff, possession has been taken
from the plaintiff, and possession has been delivered to
defendants. Defendants in turn have transferred title and
possession to defendant No.5 through four sale-deeds dated 6-11-
1969 (Ex.A-3) & (Ex.A-4), 9-12-1969 (Ex.A-1) and 10-12-1969
(Ex.A-2). The order of the Collector dated 27-5-1969 cancelling
the patta of plaintiff has attained finality and has not been
challenged by plaintiffs in the present suit. The plaintiff could not
show having his title, legal right and interest in the suit property
at the time of institution of the present suit. Further, the plaintiff
has miserably failed to prove his possession over the suit property,
therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality of
(14 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
perversity in deciding issues No.4,5 and 6 against the plaintiff and
this court affirms such findings. Accordingly, all these three issues
stand decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.10
16. In view of findings on issues already decided, as discussed
herein above, that in absence of producing agreement to sale, the
factum of sale of land in question by Rao bhagwat Singh has not
been proved and in view of undisputed and admitted fact that
such an agreement to sale was unregistered, no title/ rights stand
transferred in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property
on the basis of such an agreement. Therefore, this court has no
hesitation to reiterate that no right, title or interest in suit
property came to be transferred to plaintiff, and thus, issue No.10
is decided against the plaintiff.
17. Both these issues loose their significance in view of findings
of issues which have already been decided against the plaintiff.
Issue No.15
18. This is an admitted and undisputed fact that the Collector
passed the order dated 27-5-1969, which was challenged by way
of filing Review application, but the same was dismissed vide
order dated 30-4-1970. The plaintiff has not challenged the said
orders of the Collector dated 27-5-1969 and 30-4-1970. Under
orders of the Collector the patta of the plaintiff dated 31-10-1966
has been cancelled. It has been observed that patta in favour of
plaintiff was issued by the Tehsildar, without authority and mere
issuance of such patta does not confer any title to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff miserably failed to show any other evidence, by which
he acquired any right, title or interest in the suit property,
(15 of 15) [CFA-114/1981]
moreover, he has not challenged the order dated 27-5-1969 and
30-4-1970 nor the patta issued in favour of defendants, therefore,
without challenging these orders and patta of defendants, the
plaintiff could not claim to acquire any ownership rights in the suit
property in himself. The patta issued in favour plaintiff, by the
Tehsildar was without authority and has already been cancelled by
the Collector after holding enquiry. It is clear from the record that
plaintiff through various sale deeds transferred suit land in favour
of plaintiffs No.2 to 11, but plaintiffs could not prove their
possession over the suit property. Therefore, in absence of any
evidence of plaintiff acquiring any title/ ownership as well as
possession, the suit filed by plaintiff seeking declaration of
ownership has rightly been dismissed and further the issue No.15
has rightly been decided against the plaintiff. Therefore, this court
is not inclined to interfere with such findings.
19. As a result, this court is not inclined to interfere with the
impugned judgment and same is hereby affirmed. There is no
force in the first appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No
order as to costs. Decree be framed accordingly.
20. Any other pending application(s), if any, also stand(s)
disposed of.
21. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Arn/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
