- (1.)SUNIL Ambwani, J. In this plaintiffs second appeal arising out of O. S. No. 95 of 1989 for possession of the disputed house and the land appurtenant thereof, the suit was decreed on 16-11- 1991. The Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1989 filed by defendants was allowed by the District Judge, Banda on 13-4-1992 and the suit was dismissed.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated the facts stated in the plaint, giving rise to the suit are that late Kishori Lal and his wife late Smt. Dulli were the owners of the disputed house and land and were in their possession. Their younger son Lallua also claimed ownership over the land. The plaintiff had purchased the land from them for Rs. 1500/- by registered sale-deed dated 16-10-1989. The defendants have no right, title or possession over the land. The plaintiff is a Government servant. On 17-11-1989 when he returned back from his office, he found that disputed land and house were forcibly occupied by the defendants. The police did not register the crime on the ground that there was a civil dispute between the parties. The defendants filed a joint written statement and denied the plaint allegations. According to defendants, Shri Kishori Lal; Smt. Dulli and their son had no right, title or possession over the property. They have no right to sell the property by sale- deed dated 16-10-1989. The sale was a fraudulent transaction and did not confer any title on the plaintiff. The defendants were owner and in possession of the disputed property from much before 17-11-1989. The house was constructed by their mother Smt. Budhiya and sister Smt. Raniya, 50 years ago. Smt. Raniya had no son. The mother of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 Smt. Budhiya and their father used to live with Smt. Raniya. After their death, they are occupying the property as its owner.
The properties 'a, B, G, H, I' in the plaint map is 50 ft. north-south and 28 ft. east-west. The defendants alleged that they were in possession of the plot No. 901 since before the abolition of Zamindari after raising their constructions and that if the plaintiffs-purchaser had any title, the same came to an end. The trial Court held that the suit is not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act or estoppel. The plaintiff is the owner of the land, transferred to him by sale-deed dated 16-10- 1989 and that the. defendants or their purchaser did not have any right or title and further they did not mature their rights even by adverse possession.

The appellate Court re-assessed the entire evidence and recorded the findings: (A) The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were in open possession for more than 12 years prior to the date of filing the suit and that their purchaser had constructed the house. Their possession was adverse to the possession of the plaintiff and their predecessor. (B) Durga; Kishori Lal and Smt. Dulli did not have right to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff The sale-deed as such did not transfer any title in favour of the plaintiff. (C) The plaintiff did not pay the sale consideration before the Registrar, In his cross examination, the plaintiff stated that he had paid the amount to Dulli and Kishori Lal outside the office of the Registrar on the date of execution of the sale-deed. (D) The plaintiff-Shanker Singh had purchased the properties situated towards east and south of the disputed property in 1970, He was fully aware of the fact that defendant had their house on the disputed property and were living in it. He was as such not a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property for value,

(3.)I have heard Shri S. K. Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Verma for plaintiff-appellant and Shri R. C. Gupta, for respondents.
The second appeal was admitted on 22-5-1992 on the following substantial question of law:- " (1) Whether the Court could rely on the statement contained in the sale-deed dated 16-4-1989 when it was not proved to have been executed by Kishori Lal and Smt. Dulli and whether any statement in the sale-deed dated 16-4-1989 be relied upon when the sale- deed was not confronted to Kishori Lal? (2) Whether the entire, suit could, be dismissed when the defendants were laying down their claim only to a part of the suit plot? (3) Whether the defendant's evidence be related to the plot In dispute (901) when the defendant had filed evidence in regard to other plot?