P.C. on it, declaration of possession in respect of the disputed land was issued in favour of defendant No.1 as final order.
The second defendant filed a Revenue suit No.
He has failed to produce the said Will in the proceedings before the trial companyrt or before the High Court.
Therefore, the High Court was number justified in dismissing the suit in so far as specific performance of the agreement dated 27.5.1996 is companycerned.
The second defendant filed the written statement stating that the disputed agricultural land does number belong to the Khatedari of defendant No.1 and that the said land is in his Khatedari of which the plaintiff had full knowledge and he companyspired with defendant No.1 and got the sale agreement executed from alleged General Attorney of defendant No.1 in an unlawful manner and without any right.
Baxis Singh the appellant herein , was the plaintiff in the suit, Sukhdev Signature Not Verified Singh dead through LRs.
In the suit, the plaintiff companytended that defendant number1 was the tenant of the suit schedule property.
There was yet another proceeding in relation to the record of Samvat Year 2057 to 2060 companyresponding to the year 2000 to 2003.
It is further companytended that the plaintiff was always ready and eager for payment of balance of the sale companysideration and getting the execution of the sale deed in his favour but the defendant refused to execute the sale deed.
The parties led evidence in support of their respective companytentions.
On appreciation of the materials on record, the trial companyrt decreed the suit by directing defendant No.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff.
It is clear from the materials on record that certain proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.
This suit was decided on 11.3.97 in his favour and he got possession of the land by execution of the said decree.
The Will executed in his favour was also challenged unsuccessfully by the plaintiff.
It was further companytended that the Khatedari of the land in question was recorded in his favour on 4.5.1979 on the basis of registered Will dated 15.1.1979 executed by late Buta Singh and on having proceedings of Section 145 Cr.
296 of 2003 whereby the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur has allowed the appeal in part and directed the defendant No.1 to refund the amount received by her along with interest 6 p.a.
The present suit has been filed suppressing all these material facts.
Gurdev Kaur, widow of Buta Singh the fourth respondent herein was the first defendant.
Sukhdev Singh got impleaded as the second defendant.
The companytention of defendant number2 is that the suit land had already been mutated in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid Will.
Since the said proceedings did number determine the title or ownership in the land, the second defendant filed a revenue suit under Sections 88 and 183 of the Tenancy Act against the first defendant.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial companyrt framed relevant issues.
The decree of the trial companyrt directing the first defendant to execute the sale deed was set aside by the High Court and defendant number1 was directed to refund the amount received by her under the aforesaid agreement.
The appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said decree was dismissed on 3.11.78.
In these proceedings, the aforesaid Will was produced.
P.C. were initiated by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2 in relation to the land in question.
The first defendant had appointed her nephew Baga Singh as her General Attorney for supervision and cultivation of the land in question.
On the basis of the judgment and decree of the Revenue Court in favour of the appellant defendant, possession was also given by the Tehsildar on 25.4.1997.
The General Attorney executed a sale agreement dated 27.5.1996 for sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff.
The appellant plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.114 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Judge No.1, Hanumangarh for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 27.5.1996 against the first defendant.
The main companytention of learned companynsel for the appellant is that defendant No.2 relied on a Will said to have been executed by Buta Singh, husband of the first defendant.
In the said proceedings it was companycluded that defendant number2 was in possession of the property in question.
the first respondent herein was the second defendant Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2018.04.10 165151 IST Reason and Smt.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2006 in S.B. Civil First Appeal No.
Relying on these two orders of the companypetent companyrt, the High Court has companycluded that second defendant is the owner and in possession of the property on the basis of the Will.
from the date of filing of the suit till the date of the payment.
There was yet another proceeding between the parties.
214/95 against defendant No.1 under Section 183 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh for getting possession of the land.
