Regular Second Appeal No. 4061 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4061 of 2010 Date of decision : October 15, 2010 Tehal Singh and others ....Appellants versus Sawaran Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the appellants L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Tehal Singh etc. plaintiffs having failed in both the courts below are in second appeal. The plaintiffs' case is that they purchased suit property from Gurvinder Singh vide sale deed dated 15.7.1998. Gurvinder Singh had purchased it from Ajit Singh who had purchased it from Havel Singh father of the defendants. Defendant no. 1 Gurbachan Singh since deceased is now represented by respondents no. 1 to 6 as his legal representatives whereas defendant no. 2 Satnam Singh is respondent no. 7 herein. The plaintiffs claiming to be owners in possession of the suit property sought permanent injunction restraining defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom. The plaintiffs also sought declaration that decree dated 1.6.2000 Regular Second Appeal No. 4061 of 2010 -2- obtained by defendants in civil suit no. 361 of 1998 against Ajit Singh and others is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. The defendants denied the plaint allegations. They pleaded that they had rented out the house to Ajit Singh. The plaintiffs in collusion with Ajit Singh want to grab the suit house. Defendants pleaded that they are owners in possession of the suit house and the plaintiffs have no concern therewith and plaintiffs want to dispossess the defendants therefrom. It may be added that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs alleged that they have been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Assandh vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiffs stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Karnal vide judgment and decree dated 31.7.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. According to plaintiffs own version and evidence, Havel Singh father of the defendants sold the suit property to Ajit Singh by way of agreement and power of attorney but no registered sale deed was executed. Similarly, Ajit Singh allegedly sold the suit property to Gurvinder Singh by way of agreement and power of attorney without there being any registered sale deed. Gurvinder Singh has executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants vehemently contended that Ajit Singh was recorded to be owner of the suit property in Regular Second Appeal No. 4061 of 2010 -3- Municipal records and therefore, plaintiffs have become owners of the suit property having purchased it from Gurvinder Singh who purchased it from Ajit Singh. I have considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. Even taking the version and evidence of the plaintiffs at its face value, the plaintiffs cannot succeed. The plaintiffs have themselves led evidence that Havel Singh father of the defendants had sold the suit property to Ajit Singh by way of agreement. It would depict that Havel Singh was owner of the suit property and if the alleged sale is not proved then suit property was inherited by defendants being his sons. The alleged sale is not proved because admittedly there is no registered sale deed by Havel Singh in favour of Ajit Singh. Without registered sale deed, there could not be valid transfer of title over the suit property by Havel Singh to Ajit Singh. Similarly, there was no valid sale by Ajit Singh to Gurvinder Singh vendor of the plaintiffs. There was allegedly only agreement by Ajit Singh in favour of Gurvinder Singh. However, in the absence of registered sale deed, Ajit Singh also could not transfer valid title over the suit property to Gurvinder Singh. Even otherwise, Ajit Singh himself had no title over the suit property and therefore, could not transfer any title over the suit property to Gurvinder Singh. Consequently, on the basis of sale deed dated 15.7.1998 executed by Gurvinder Singh in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have not derived title or ownership over the suit property because their vendor Gurvinder Singh himself had no title over the suit property and therefore, he could not transfer any title to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants laid great Regular Second Appeal No. 4061 of 2010 -4- emphasis on entries of Municipal records depicting Ajit Singh to be owner of the suit property. However, entries in Municipal record may be evidence of title but certainly the said entries are not documents of title. In the instant case as already noticed hereinbefore, even if the evidence and version of the plaintiffs is taken at its face value, there was no valid transfer of title to Ajit Singh and consequently, there was no valid transfer of title by Ajit Singh to Gurvinder Singh or by Gurvinder Singh to the plaintiffs. Mere entry in Municipal record would not establish title or ownership of Ajit Singh over the suit property when according to plaintiffs' own evidence, Ajit Singh did not acquire valid title over the suit property. Plaintiffs-appellants are also not entitled to benefit of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act because the same can be set up only as defence in suit filed by transferor but the same cannot be set up by the plaintiffs. For the reasons aforesaid, without going into other aspects of the case, I find that the appellants cannot succeed because according to their own version and evidence, they have not acquired valid title or ownership over the suit property. The appeal is, thus, found to be without any merit. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 15, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'