R.S.A. No. 3618 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3618 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.2.2011 Pritam Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Jasbir Kaur and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner in possession of land measuring 10 kanals 4 marlas described in the head note of the plaint. Pritam Singh, Pal Singh, Baldev Singh through their attorney Bakhshish Singh sold the suit land for a consideration of ` 57,500/- vide sale deed dated 26.11.1993 to the plaintiff and had delivered possession to her. They were in possession of specific khasra numbers. Mutation had been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed. Bachan Kaur-defendant No.2 through her attorney and defendant No.4 had sold R.S.A. No. 3618 of 2010 (O&M) 2 their share vide sale deed dated 22.7.1999 for a consideration of ` 75,000/- to the plaintiff. Bachan Kaur and Deepo alleged that they had sold land to Sarabjit Kaur vide sale deed dated 26.7.1999 although they had already sold the land to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 22.7.1999. Sarabjit Kaur had no salable interest in the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 Sarabjit Kaur averred that defendants No.6 to 8 were not entitled to sell 10 kanals 4 marlas of land as they were not owners of the said land. Defendant No.1 denied execution of sale deed by the said defendants No.6 to 8 dated 26.11.1993. It was further averred that Bachan Kaur through her attorney and Deepo had sold land to her vide sale deed dated 26.7.1999 for valuable consideration. She had purchased 3 kanals 18 marlas of land out of the joint land measuring 46 kanals 7 marlas. Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 averred that defendants No.6 to 8 had never executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff qua 10 kanals 4 marlas of land. It was further averred that Bachan Kaur and Deepo had not executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 22.7.1999. Defendant No.3 averred that she had sold the land measuring 1 kanal 1 marla to Gurmukh Singh. Defendants no.6 to 8 were not entitled to sell 10 kanals 4 marlas of land as they had only 1/8th share in the suit land which came to 5 kanals 16 marlas. Defendants No.6 to 9 averred that they were not entitled to sell 10 kanals 4 marlas of land as they had sold their share. The answering defendants had 1/8th share in the suit land i.e. 5 kanals 16 marlas and hence they could not sell 10 kanals 4 marlas of land out of the total joint holding measuring 46 kanals 7 marlas. The sale deed was got executed and R.S.A. No. 3618 of 2010 (O&M) 3 registered at Tarn Taran in the office of Sub-Registrar, who had no jurisdiction to register the document. Sub-Tehsil Khadur Sahib was established in district Amritsar in the year 1976 and Village Kallah fell within the jurisdiction of Sub-Tehsil Khadur Sahib. Defendants No.6 to 8 also filed the counter claim seeking declaration for joint possession in the suit property to the extent of 1/8th share. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the suit property ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 6. Whether the plaint is hit under the provisions of CPC ? OPD. 7. Whether defendants No.6 to 8 are entitled to the declaration and decree for joint possession as claimed in the counter-claim ? OPD. 8. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 3.9.2007, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff as it was held that plaintiff was owner in R.S.A. No. 3618 of 2010 (O&M) 4 joint possession of land measuring 5 kanals 16 marlas out of the total joint holding measuring 46 kanals 7 marlas. The counter claim preferred by defendants No.6 to 9 was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree defendants No.6 to 9 preferred an appeal and vide judgment and decree dated 1.6.2010 the Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants No.6 to 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. There is no force in the sole argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the sale deed could not have been registered by Sub-Registrar Tarn Taran as the property involved in the suit property was situated at village Kallah which fell within the jurisdiction of Sub Tehsil Khadur Sahib. Section 28 of the Registration Act, 1908 reads as under :- “28. Place for registering documents relating to land.- Save as in this Part otherwise provided, every document mentioned in section 17, sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), section 17, sub-section(2), insofar as such document affects immovable property, and section 18, clauses (a), (b) (c) and (cc), shall be presented for registration in the office of a Sub-Registrar within whose sub-district the whole or some portion of the property to which such document relates is situate.” In the present case the sale deed was got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Tarn Taran. Sub-Tehsil Khadur Sahib falls within the R.S.A. No. 3618 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Tehsil Tarn Taran. In these circumstances, the sale deed could have also been got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Tarn Taran. The sale deed cannot be set aside merely on this ground that it had been got registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Tarn Taran instead of the joint Sub-Registrar appointed in the area of Sub-Tehsil Khadur Sahib. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 2, 2011 Anand