received on -26/08/2008 registered on 30/08/2008 decided on – 14 ...

4
3 Defendants no. 2 and 3 filed their written statement of
defence at exh. 20 and inter alia denied all the adverse allegations.
They have admitted that defendant no.l was owner in possession of
land Gat no. 154 to the extent of 1 Hec. 22 R, situated at Partur.
They have denied that defendant no.l agreed to sell the entire l Hec.
22 R land in favour of the plaintiff and executed an agreement to
sale as alleged. They have contended that plaintiff and defendant
no.l colluded each other and in order to defeat their rights, prepared
false anti dated agreement to sale. They have further contended that
though it has been mentioned in agreement to sale that possession
was delivered in favour of the plaintiff. However, no possession was
delivered in favour of the plaintiff as claimed. In fact, they are in
possession over the suit land. They have contended that plaintiff has
purchased western side 61 R land from the defendant no.l under
registered sale deed dated 30/05/2008. Lateron, defendant no.l sold
the suit land in their favour under registered sale deed and delivered
the possession. Since then, they are in possession over the suit land.
As suit land is in their possession, question of obstructing in the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff doesnot arise. Theyhave
contended that at the time of sale deed dated 30/05/2008, no
agreement to sale was in existence. They have contended that
plaintiff did not raise any objection at the time of sale deed, in their
favour. Even, he did not raise any objection, while mutating their
names in the record of rights. On the basis of registered sale deed in
their favour, their names have been mutated in the record of rights.
Plaintiff has no concern whatsoever, with the suit land. They have
further pleaded that they had created the plots in the suit land. As
the prices of the immoveable properties have increased, plaintiff and