1,58,500/- against the defendant by pleading that an agreement had been executed in his favour in respect of a shop and 3-1/2 marlas of land along with boundary wall for a sale-consideration of 1,75,000/-, and out of such total amount, a sum of 75,000/- had been paid to the defendant towards earnest money. Thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff from the revenue record that the shop in question had, in fact, been built on Government land. Accordingly, a sale-deed of land measuring 3-1/2 marlas was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 30.7.1996, for a consideration of 16,500/- after adjusting the remaining amount by executing a separate receipt dated 30.7.1996 in respect to the boundary wall of the shop as also the malba upon receiving an amount of 1,58,500/- from the plaintiff. It was pleaded that possession of land measuring 1 marla was handed over and the malba in question was not handed over against receipt of 1,58,500/-. Accordingly, a suit for permanent injunction was filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur and the same was decided on 24.8.1998. In such suit, pertaining to issue No.4, the finding regarding receipt of 1,58,500/- was given in favour of the respondent. In the appeal, the District Judge, Gurdaspur modified such finding and when the matter was taken up in second appeal before this Court, it had been held that the receipt of 1,58,500/- was not admissible as evidence for transaction of sale of immovable property but the same could not be taken into consideration for the other purposes. Under such circumstances, it was stated that cause of action for instituting a suit for recovery had arisen upon the decision in regular second appeal by the High Court.
