JUDGEMENT
H.S.MADAAN,J. -
(1.)Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiffs-Hari Kishan and Budhi, both sons of Khatmal, residents of Village Bandhwari, PO Kadarpur, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurgaon had brought a suit against defendants i.e. Deepak Jain, Tek Ram, Neena Bajaj, Lt. Col. Prithvi Raj Bajaj, Savinder Singh and Lakhbir Singh, seeking a declaration that sale deeds No.5483, 5485, 5486 and 5487 dated 01.03.1996, purported to have been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants are result of fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs and the mutations sanctioned on the basis of such sale deed are also illegal, liable to be set aside, in addition to that seeking a decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. As per version of the plaintiffs, they are owners in possession of the agricultural land comprised in khewat No.144, khatoni No.161, Rect. No.62, Killa No.4 (6-4) - 1/2 share in 3 kanals 2 marlas (subject matter of sale deed No.5485 dated 01.03.1996) and land situated at Village Balola, bearing khewat No.60, khatoni No.63, Rect. No.56, Killa No. 24(8-4) to the extent of - 1/2 share, measuring 4 kanals 0 marla (subject matter of sale deed No.5486 dated 01.03.1996), land bearing khewat No.60, khatoni No.63, Rect No.56, Killa No.23(8-0) to the extent of - 1/2 share measuring 4 kanals 0 marla (subject matter of sale deed No.5487 dated 01.03.1996), land of Village Balola bearing Rect No.56, killa No.25 (3-0) to the extent of - 1/2 share measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas was illegally sold by Deepak Jain (defendant No.1) to Neena Bajaj (defendant No.3) and Lt. Col. Prithvi Raj (defendant No.4) under the fictitious sale deed No.5483 for a sum of Rs.21,000/-. That sale deed was purportedly executed by the plaintiffs on the basis of that, mutation was sanctioned on 01.08.1996 vide No.1465. The possession of that land was taken by Deepak Jain and alleged purchasers with the help of anti social elements about two months before filing of the suit. On coming to know about such illegal acts committed by the defendants in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by them, the plaintiffs had submitted a complaint to the police. According to the plaintiffs, the khasra girdawari entries from 1999 upto 2004 show that the plaintiffs are still in possession of the land falling in Rect No.56, Killa No.25/1 and wrong mutation No.1465 was sanctioned in favour of the bogus purchasers without issuance of notice to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are owners in possession of - 1/2 share in the land comprised in Rect. No.62, Killa No.4 (6-4), measuring 3 kanals 2 marlas, which was illegally purchased vide registered sale deed No.5485 dated 01.03.1996 for a sum of Rs.43,000/- by Savinder Singh and Lakhbir Singh defendants in collusion with each other and then in collusion with revenue authorities got sanctioned mutation No.1468 in their favour. That the plaintiffs are owners in possession of half share in land comprised in khewat No.60, khatoni No.63, Rect No.56, Killa No.23(8-0) measuring 4 kanals 0 marla which was sold illegally by Deepak Jain in collusion with Savinder Singh and Lakhbir Singh and one Tek Ram witness along with others by hatching a conspiracy against the plaintiffs by getting plaintiffs signatures/thumb impressions when they were purchasing the land from Deepak Jain by playing fraud for a fictitious price of Rs.55,000/-, vide sale deed No.5486 dated 01.03.1996. The defendants in collusion with each other got sanctioned mutation No.1469 in favour of Lakhbir Singh, (defendant No.6). That the plaintiffs were defrauded by the defendants who have shown land of Village Balola bearing khewat No.60, khatoni No.63, Rect No.56, Killa No.23(8-0) half share measuring 4 kanals 0 marla allegedly sold vide registered sale deed No.5487 dated 01.03.1996 for a sum of Rs.55,000/- to Savinder Singh. Mutation was wrongly sanctioned vide No.1470 on 01.08.1996 in favour of bogus purchaser Savinder Singh. Nevertheless, the possession of this land is still with the plaintiffs as owners. According to the plaintiffs on 01.03.1996, they had purchased 8 kanals of land comprised in khewat No.38, khatoni No.39, Min Rect No.63, Killa No.22 (8-0) measuring 12 kanals situated at Village Balola from Deepak Jain-defendant No.1, vide sale deed No.5484 for a sum of Rs.1,65,000/-. The plaintiffs had purchased 0 kanal 12 marlas of land situated at Village Balola from Deepak Jain, vide sale deed No.5488 for a sum of Rs.8500/-. That Deepak Jain and others had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with bogus purchasers and Tek Ram witness of the sale deeds bearing Nos. 5483, 5485, 5486 and 5487 and cheated plaintiffs by getting their signatures upon certain papers in order to convert those papers into fictitious sale deeds. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs had not executed any such sale deeds. On the one hand, the defendants got sanctioned wrong and illegal mutation and on the other hand, the land purchased by the plaintiffs from Deepak Jain vide mutation No.1471, which was got cancelled by the defendants in collusion with the revenue officials. That one Jeet Ram had appeared on behalf of the bogus purchasers on 01.03.1996 and in one sale deed bearing No.5485, Jeet Ram is shown to be purchaser of the land, whereas, according to the sale deed No.5485, the land is shown to have been sold to Savinder Singh and Lakhbir Singh-defendants. That about two months earlier, the defendants took forcible possession of - 1/2 share of agricultural land of plaintiffs bearing Rect N.56, Killa No.23/1, alleged to have been sold to Smt. Neena and Col. Prithvi Raj and when the plaintiffs came to know that they with the help of respectables intervened and foiled the attempt of defendants from taking possession of other land. The plaintiffs had approached the revenue authorities for taking necessary action. When the defendants did not pay any heed to the request of the plaintiffs to desist from taking forcible possession of the land in question, they approached the Court, by way of filing a civil suit.
(2.)On getting notice, the defendants appeared. Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement, whereas, defendant Nos.5 and 6 came up with a separate written statement. However, defendant No.2 had not appeared despite service and as such was proceeded against ex parte. In the joint written statement submitted on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, they had taken various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit; plaintiffs being estopped from filing the suit; they being guilty of concealment of facts; the suit being bad for non joinder of necessary parties; no cause of action having arisen to the plaintiffs to file the suit and the suit being time barred etc. On merits, the answering defendants denied that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the land in question. According to them, defendant No.1 had rightly sold 1 kanal 10 marlas of land in favour of defendant Nos.3 and 4, vide sale deed bearing document (vasika) No.5483 for a sale consideration of Rs.21,000/-, transferring the possession to the purchasers and they are owners in possession of the land ever since. It is denied that the sale deed in question is the result of any fraud or conspiracy, rather, the sale deed is defended as legal and valid executed for consideration after understanding the contents of the same and after receiving the sale consideration. It is denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land bearing killa No.25/1 of Rect No.56. It is contended that defendant Nos.3 and 4 are in actual physical possession of the suit land and their possession is being reflected in the khasra girdawaries. As such, defendants have constructed residential houses and are using the same to the notice of plaintiffs. The answering defendants denied that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of - 1/2 share of killa No.4 of Rect No.62. According to them, the land was rightly purchased by defendant Nos.5 and 6 for a sale consideration of Rs.43,000/- and the possession was delivered to the purchasers and they are in actual physical possession of the property since the time of purchase. That the sale deed in question is legal and valid, executed by the plaintiffs after receipt of sale consideration of Rs.55,000/- on 01.03.1996. It is a registered document. Mutation has rightly been sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed. It was denied that the mutation No.1471 had been got cancelled by the defendants in collusion with revenue officials without notice to the plaintiffs or without their knowledge. It is further denied that when the plaintiffs purchased the land from Deepak Jain, in that process the signatures of plaintiffs were obtained. The impugned sale deeds are defended as legal and valid documents, executed by the plaintiffs after receiving the consideration amount. It was denied that defendants had taken forcible possession of the land in question or that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land, refuting the remaining allegations, such defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.)Written statement filed by defendant Nos.5 and 6 is almost on similar lines as that of defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. All the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. No replication was filed.