S.S.L Dar, J.M:— This is a second appeal in a case tinder section 59/61, U.P Tenancy Act against the concurrent orders of the two courts below decreeing plaintiff-respondent's Nazir Ahmad's suit.
2. The facts are clearly set forth in the order of the. Additional Commissioner and need not be repeated in detail.
3. The following pedigree is admitted:—
4. Both the courts have found that Kandhaiya Lal and Ganga Prasad executed a fictitious sale deed of their fixed-rate holding in favour of appellant Kashi Prasad alias Manna Lal on April 10, 1922 in order to cheat the railway authorities. Manna Lal was knowing by a party to the fraud. Another sale deed of the same property was executed by Ganga Prasad and Kandhaiya Lai in 1940 in favour of plaintiff-respondent Nazir Ahmad. It is contended on behalf of the latter that the first sale deed in favour of Kashi Prasad alias Manna Lal being fictitious no rights were transferred to Manna Lal and, therefore, the sale deed executed in plaintiff's favour is a valid sale deed on the basis of which he is the fixed-rate tenant of the plot in suit No. 195, area. 31 acre.
5. It was held in A.I.R 1923 All. 411 that where a person succeeded in carrying out the fraud by executing a sale deed of his property he is precluded from putting forward his own title to the property by taking advantage of his own fraud. Further, it was held in A.I.R 1929 All. 237 that it is not open to a party to plead his own fraud against other, not a party to the fraud. According to the principle enunciated in these rulings neither of the two parties to the earlier bogus sale deed can challenge the title of the plaintiff-appellant who is an innocent purchaser under the second sale deed of 1940. Govind Singh v. Ganga Devi ( 1948 R.D 296), is an authority for the proposition that a finding that a lease is fictitious or not is a finding of fact. The sale deed of 1922 having been held to be fictitious the mere entry of Kashi Prasad alias Manna Lal's name in the patwari papers is of no importance. Both the courts have found that he is not in possession.
6. Agreeing with the lower courts. I dismiss the appeal with costs and Rs. 20/- pleader's fee.
7. Appeal dismissed.
8. C.C.O No. 1948 for R.D