Civil Revision No. 2849 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2849 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.05.2009. Harimder Pal Singh @ Harjinder Pal Singh ...Petitioner Versus Madan Mohan and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sudeep Mahajn, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Khurana, Advocate for the Caveator/ respondent ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiffs-petitioners have a grievance that their plea for the framing of additional issues was inappropriately declined by the learned Trial Court. For enabling the proper appreciation of the controversy, it would be useful to notice the issues already framed by the learned Trial Court on the pleadings of the parties and the issues proposed to be framed by the plaintiffs-petitioners, which are reproduced hereunder:- Issues already framed:- “1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present Civil Revision No. 2849 of 2009 -2- **** form?OPD. 2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD. 3. Whether suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fees?OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is bonafide purchaser and in possession over the suit property?OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as prayed for?OPP. 6. Relief.” Issues proposed to be framed:- “i) Whether the plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers for consideration without notice, if so its effect?OPP. ii) Whether the plaintiffs have not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts?OPD. iii) In case the plaintiffs succeed in proving the sale deed, whether the sale deed is fictitious, if so its effect?OPD. iv) Whether Jagdish Raj etc. Vendors have got no right, title, or interest in the suit property?OPD”. In order to be able to find out whether the issues proposed to be framed are actually arise from the pleadings of the parties or not, it would be apt to notice the pleadings of the parties at the trial. Civil Revision No. 2849 of 2009 -3- **** Copies of the pleadings (plaint, written statement and application) were shown at the time of arguments before this Court. In the plaint, all that the plaintiffs-petitioners alleged was that they had purchased the property in suit from their predecessor- in-interest, vide an indicated registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.34,000/-. The purchase was made after due verification from the revenue record. The plaintiffs-petitioners are, thus, bonafide purchasers of that property for value and without notice of any defect in the title of the vendor. In the written statement, the defendants therein averred that the plaintiffs-petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest had never been in possession of the land in suit. On the other hand, it was the defendant-respondent who had been declared to be owner in possession of that land, vide an order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Amritsar, in the proceedings under Section 37 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act. A plea, raised in the alternative, was that if the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners is proved to have been executed by their predecessor-in-interest, it was invalid because the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs-petitioners did not carry any title, interest or right in that land which had also never been in their possession as owner thereof. The further averment in the context, was that there had been long term litigation between the defendant-respondent and his father (and some others). It would, thus, be apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the already framed issues and the proposed issues that the essential Civil Revision No. 2849 of 2009 -4- **** controversy between the parties is covered by issue no.4. In an evidence of affirmative character, the plaintiffs-petitioners shall be required to prove that they had purchased the land in suit as bonafide purchasers and that they are in possession thereof. In rebuttal thereof, the defendant-respondent shall be required to prove to contrary and to prove his own title and possession over that land. This would take care of the respective pleadings of the parties (and the proposed issues (i) (iii) abd (iv). Insofar as issue no.1 is concerned, it also takes care of the averments made by the defendant-respondent in preliminary objection no.1 of the written statement. There is, thus, no force in the petition. The plea raised by the plaintiffs-petitioners for framing of additional issues had been appropriately declined by the learned Trial Court. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 26, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge