After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Defendants No.1 and 2 had sold the property to respondents/plaintiffs vide registered sale deeds dated September 6, 2005. As per the recital in the sale deeds as noticed in the order passed by learned Addl. District Judge, it was specifically mentioned that no lease deed has been executed in favour of any person. The possession of land was also delivered. However, when the petitioners who are the sons and grand-sons of defendants No.1 and 2 who had sold the property to respondents/plaintiffs started interfering into possession claiming to be lessee on the suit land in terms of the alleged lease deed executed in their favour on April 7, 2004, the suit came to be filed. Both the learned Courts below found that once there is recital in the sale deeds which is a registered document executed on September 6, 2005, clearly mentioning non execution of any lease deed in favour of any person and also handing over of physical possession, to claim that the same is a fictitious document over and above the lease deed executed in favour of petitioners was not found to be prima-facie tenable as the same was opined to be a matter which was required to be dealt with after the evidence of the parties was led. Even otherwise the vendor to the respondents/plaintiffs was none else but father/grand-father and mother/grand-mother of the petitioners, who, while selling the property to respondents/plaintiffs very well knew if any lease deed had been executed by them and by mentioning in the sale deeds that there was no lease deed and handing over the possession to respondents/plaintiffs was just to non-suit the petitioners from the land in dispute, even if there was any alleged lease deed.
