HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APPEAL NO.26/ 2004 1. Pramod Kumar Agrawal 2. Dr. Yashpal Agrawal Both sons of Shri Ramnath Agrawal R/o Loco Bazar Laksar, Pargana-Manglor Tehsil- Laksar, District Haridwar ................Plaintiff-Appellants. Vs. 1. Nagar Panchayat Laksar through its Executive Officer Nagar Panchayat Laksar, Tehsil-Laksar, District Haridwar 2. Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat Laksar Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar .................Respondent-Respondents 13.03.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. Heard Shri Lok Pal Singh, counsel for the appellants and Shri A.V. Pundir, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellants have prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haridwar in O.S. No. 40 of 1998. 3. Briefly stated, a suit being no. 40 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiffs praying for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the land in dispute as well as for making constructions in accordance with the map sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiffs have purchased the land from Chatar Singh and Mohkam Singh by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.12.1996 after paying sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- and after execution of the said sale deed, the plaintiffs have become the owners of the property and are continuing in the possession of the land. They have also been recorded in the revenue records. They have submitted a map on 5.6.1997 for sanctioning for the construction after execution of the sale deed but the respondents are not permitting the appellants to make any construction on the land in dispute. 4. A written statement was filed by the defendants. In paragraph nos. 16 and 17, it has been stated that the plaintiffs have no right over the land in dispute and the land in question belong to the Nagar Panchayat. Even the predecessor of the plaintiffs have no right over the land in dispute. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court has framed the following issues:- “1. As to whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property in dispute? 2. As to whether the suit is less valued and the court fee paid is inappropriate? 3. As to whether the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? 4. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to? 6. Towards the documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have produced paper nos. 9 ka 1 to 12 ka 1 as per list 8 ga and paper nos. 34 ga to 38 ga as per list 33 ga. Towards the documentary evidence, the defendants have produced paper nos. 19 ka 1 and 20 ga 1 as per list 18 ga 1 and paper nos. 24 ga to 26 ga as per list 23 ga. Amin report 28 ga 2 and 63 ga 2 have also been produced on the ground. 7. Towards the oral evidence, the plaintiffs have examined Pramod Kumar as P.W.1, Sita Ram as P.w.2 and Mitra Bhaskar Shah as P.W.3. Towards the oral evidence, the defendants have examined Shanti Prasad Joshi as D.W.1, Narendra Singh as D.W.2 and Krishnapal as D.W.3. 8. While deciding as to whether the plaintiffs are the owners in possession over the property in dispute, reliance has been placed on the statement of P.W.1 Pramod Kumar who has proved that a registered sale deed was exacted in his favour by one Chatar Singh and Mohkam Singh on 27.12.1996 on a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-. He has produced the copy of the sale deed dated 27.12.1996 i.e. paper no. 9 ka1. According to the plaintiffs, the sale deed relates to Khasra No. 53 and 58 which from part of khasra no. 51. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 Narendra Singh was examined who has deposed that khasra no. 51 recorded in the name of Chatar Singh and Mohkam Singh and they have been recorded as bhumidhars with transferable rights. In the cross-examination, Narendra Singh has deposed that Khasra no.51 adjoins khasra no. 58. The trial court has completely disbelieved the version of the plaintiffs on the ground that the disputed land does not lie with khasra no. 51. In view of the aforesaid, the trial court has decided the issue against the plaintiff. The trial court has also come to the conclusion that the predecessor of the plaintiffs were neither in possession nor any title of the land in dispute was recorded in his name. 9. I have perused the relevant sale deed which is a registered document. 10. In Bhandari Construction Co. v. Narayan Gopal Upadhye reported in (2007) 3 SCC 163, it has been held that it is impossible to lead evidence to contradict its terms in view of Section 91 of the Evidence Act if the terms of the transaction are reduced to writing. The observation of the Apex Court is quoted below:- “15. When the terms of the transaction are reduced to writing, it is impossible to lead evidence to contradict its terms in view of Section of 91 of the Evidence Act.” 11. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that no survey has been conduced with regard to title of the land and possession thereof, therefore, it is a fit case for remand to the trial court. The trial court shall frame the proper issue with regard to title of the parties and decide the same accordingly. 12. Subject to the observations made above, appeal is allowed and sent back to the trial court for deciding afresh in the light of the observations made above. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 13.03.2008 Avneet