Roshan Lal vs Chaman Lal and Others

Deepak Gupta, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as defendant No.1) has laid challenge to the order dated 1st June, 2009 whereby the application filed by him under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) CPC for placing on record certified/attested copy of registered sale deed No.1352 dated 16.10.1999 in favour of one Amar Nath son of Gopi Ram in respect of part of khasra No.395/2, has been dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Plaintiffs i.e. Chaman Lal, Pawan Kumar minor son of Roshan Lal and Smt. Darshana Devi widow of 2 Sh. Roshan Lal filed a suit. In the suit it was claimed that the Plaintiffs jointly hold 1/3rd share in the suit land comprised in khasra No. 395. It was further claimed that the Plaintiff No. 1 had 1/6th share in the property and Plaintiffs No. 2&3 jointly held 1/6th share. The Defendant No. 1 in his written statement claimed that the Plaintiff No. 1 and his deceased brother, also named Roshan Lal, had executed an oral sale on 21.11.1986 and sold their entire share in the suit land for a total consideration of Rs. 75/- only. However, according to Defendant No. 1, the entire share of the Plaintiffs was only 1/6th and not 1/3rd in the suit land. It was also averred that the Revenue Officer had sanctioned a mutation in favour of Defendant No. 1 in the presence of Plaintiff No. 1 and predecessor in interest of Plaintiffs 2&3 on 17.12.1986.

The main dispute before the learned trial Court was whether the Plaintiffs had sold their entire share holding in the suit land to Defendant No. 1 or not. Issues in the case were framed on 15.12.2003. Thereafter, Plaintiffs led evidence and the case 3 was first listed for evidence of the Defendants on 27.11.2007. The case was thrice adjourned for evidence of the Defendants. Some part of their evidence was recorded and on 22.9.2008 the application in question was filed.

By means of this application the Petitioner wants to place on record the certified/attested copy of registered sale deed No. 1352 dated 16.10.1999 whereby he has allegedly sold part of khasra No. 395 to one Amar Nath son of Gopi Ram. The learned trial Court rejected the said application on the ground that no reference to this sale deed had been made in the written statement and also on the ground that the same was not relevant to dispose of the main case.

The basic dispute which arises in this case is whether the Plaintiff No. 1 and predecessor in interest of Plaintiffs 2&3 had sold their entire share in the land in favour of Defendant No. 1. If that is proved then no share would be left for them and obviously their suit will be dismissed. The Defendant No. 1 may have purchased shares of other parties and sold some portion of the land to

other persons but when he admits that the Plaintiffs were originally co-owners in the land he will have to prove the fact that they transferred their entire share in the land holdings in his favour. The subsequent sale deeds, in my view, are not relevant to decide the main issue in dispute.In view of the above discussion, the petition is rejected. No costs.

The parties through their learned Counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 7th February, 2011. Since the suit is of the year 2000, the learned trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same as early as possible and in any event not later than 30th June, 2011. If necessary, the suit can be heard on day to day basis.