RSA No. 3258 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3258 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.9.2009 Jaimal Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Manish Prabhakar, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for joint possession of 2/3rd share of the land measuring 31 kanals 12 marlas and 1/4th share of the land measuring 5 kanals 1 marla, was decreed, in appeal. One Labh Singh was the owner of the land measuring 31 kanals 12 marlas and another parcel of land measuring 5 kanals 1 marla situated in village Bhilowal, Tehsil and District Amritsar. After the death of Labh Singh, his property was inherited by Bela Singh, who died on 28.11.1993. The plaintiffs claimed estate of Bela Singh being his only legal heirs, whereas the defendants propounded lease for a period 99 years allegedly executed by Bela Singh in their favour on 11.6.1993. The lessees in the aforesaid lease are the minor sons of Mohinder Singh, another son of Bela RSA No. 3258 of 2009 (2) Singh. The said lease was upheld by the learned trial Court, but the first Appellate Court set aside the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and decreed the suit. The first Appellate Court has noticed that Bela Singh has executed a registered Will on 18.11.1993, wherein there is no mention of lease dated 11.6.1993. The Will bequeath his estate in favour of his sons and provides life interest to his wife as well. The learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration that DW1 Lakhbir Singh, the attesting witness of the lease has deposed that Mohinder Singh paid lease money to Bela on 9.6.1994 at the time of execution of the lease deed itself and the remaining amount for 98 years aggregating Rs.1,96,000/- was paid on 26.6.1993 vide receipt Exhibit DW6/5. He further deposed that only a sum of Rs.2000/- was paid before the Sub Registrar. DW2 Dhanna Singh another attesting witness has deposed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid in his presence to Bela Singh when lease deed was executed. It was found by the first Appellate Court that there is discrepancy in the testimony of both the attesting witnesses with regard to the amount paid to Bela Singh. The Court also took into consideration that a big chunk of land measuring 33 kanals 10 marlas was leased out for a period of 99 years at a flat rate of Rs.2000/- per annum. Though it was the stand of the defendants that the entire lease amount was paid at the time of registration of the lease deed, but the evidence led is otherwise. The lessees were minors and had no source of income to pay the lease money of about Rs.2 lacs. Mohinder Singh, the father of the minors, while appearing as DW6, has deposed that he does not own any land nor do his sons. Thus, it was found suspicious as to how Mohinder Singh would pay Rs.2 lacs as lease money in the year 1993. Exhibit DW6/5 was found to RSA No. 3258 of 2009 (3) be a suspicious document as there were no signatures or thumb impressions of Bela Singh across the revenue stamp and that space of about three inches has been left in between the body of the receipt and thumb impression of Bela Singh. In view of the said fact, a finding was returned that the lease deed is actuated by fraud and misrepresentation and is not binding on the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the discrepancies noticed by the learned first Appellate Court in the statement of the attesting witnesses is due to lapse of time and are minor in nature. It is contended that Bela Singh has executed lease in his full senses, therefore, the document cannot be said to be a result of fraud or misrepresentation. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable in law. Apart from the discrepancy regarding payment of lease money, the first Appellate Court also took into consideration various other factors to return a finding that such lease deed is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Execution of the lease deed by Bela Singh for 99 years in favour of his minor grand sons itself is suspicious. Bela Singh has executed a registered Will after five months of the alleged execution of the lease deed, but there is no recital of lease in favour of his grand sons. The Will gives equal shares to both the sons and also a life interest to the widow. The effect of the lease deed is to deprive the other legal heirs of their legitimate shares. The receipt itself is found to be suspicious. The learned first Appellate Court has taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances to return a finding of fact that such document is result of fraud and misrepresentation. RSA No. 3258 of 2009 (4) Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 8.9.2009 ds