Shimla and entered into revenue records as per Jamabandi for the year 1970 71 NOW THIS SALE DEED WITNESSETH AS UNDER That the Vendor, as per the above sale agreement, has transferred his land admeasuring 4 Biswas, Khewat No.32, Khatauni No.48, Khasra No.613 over which a two storey building called Anand Bhawan is built, situated in Village Kethu, Tehsil Distt.
Prior to companystruing the sale deed and finding out whether what was transferred was entire Anand Bhawan owned by Churu Ram or only 4 biswas of Khasra number613 it is necessary to mention few facts number with a view to decide title of appellant but to emphasise that things were number as they have been made out by the District Judge which has resulted in number only in grave error of law but even gross miscarriage of justice.
Then the respondent filed the present suit for declaration that the two orders passed by Rent Control Officer were null and void and sought an injunction restraining appellant from interferring in her possession.
In 1987 the appellant filed another eviction petition against Sant Ram which was companytested and number ownership of the flat was claimed with respondent.
The oral and documentary evidence was rejected and recitals in sale deed of 1976 were held to be companyclusive.
The tenants living in the above property are 1 Sant Ram, 2 Salig Ram, Bali Ram and 4 Amogh Chand.
The possession of the property and the land sold has been handed over to the vendee today.
13,000/ Rupees Thirteen Thousand only with all its title, ownership, road water, airlight, including other amenities, fittings, fixtures, drains and other rights whatsoever the Vendor has in respect of the said land and the house, in favour of the Vendee companypletely and permanently.
Therefore, the appellant to prove her title filed the sale deed and jamabandi, that is the revenue extract of 1970 71.
The Trial Court further numbericed that when eviction proceedings were started by the appellant against another tenant he went to the length of denying title of appellant and claimed that entire right and title of Anand Bhawan vested in respondent.
In appeal the District Judge relying on evidence of Kanungo who had gone to demarcate the area on spot, tax receipts and report.
The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court.
The appellant is the wife of Amogh Chand who was tenant of one of the sets and was mentioned in the sale deed at number4.
It was held that the sale deed in favour of respondent was invalid.
In 1979 the appellant filed a petition for eviction of Sant Ram.
The Rent Control Officer allowed the application and companymented adversely against Sant Ram.
He denied ownership of the appellant.
The possession of one set is with the husband of the vendee and the possession of rest of the property is given through the tenants.
The entry in it is as under Khewat Khautani Name of Name of Khasra Posse Revenue No.
It is number disputed that one Churu Ram was the owner of the property in dispute.
The respondent is the daughter in law of Sant Ram who was also tenant of one set and was mentioned as numberl.
It was companytested by him.
Shimla for Rs.
of Commissioner allowed the appeal.
