R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 03, 2011 Udai Singh .... Appellant Vs. Gajraj Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff no.1 Udai Singh, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by Udai Singh appellant, Krishan Singh (since deceased and represented by proforma respondent no.24 Umed Bai as his legal representative) and Bhim Singh (since deceased and represented by proforma respondent nos.25 to 27 as his legal representatives). The plaintiffs alleged that they and proforma defendants no.17 to 23 (wrongly mentioned as defendants no.16 to 22 in certified copy of judgment of trial court) are owners in possession of suit land measuring 06 R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 2 marlas comprised of khasra no.260. They got the suit property partitioned in 1993-94 and are in separate possession of respective portions of the suit land. However, Shri Lal executed sale deed dated 04.03.1986 in favour of defendants no.3 to 15 for land measuring 03 marlas 04 sarsais by fraud and misrepresentation. However, when plaintiffs came to know of it and approached defendants no.3 to 15, defendants no.3 to 15 executed cancellation deed dated 26.10.1986, whereby sale deed dated 04.03.1986 was cancelled. However, mutation on the basis of sale deed dated 04.03.1986 was sanctioned. On the basis of said wrong revenue entries, defendants no. 3 to 15 have sold one marla land to defendants no.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 23.07.1997. The said sale deed is illegal and null and void and based on fraud and misrepresentation. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the contesting defendants from interfering in ownership, possession and use of the suit plot by the plaintiffs. Defendant no.1 controverted the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 and Mallu Singh – father of plaintiff no.3 sold two marlas land vide sale deed dated 12.12.1976 in favour of Rajender Parsad – proforma defendant no.16 (in fact proforma defendant no.17). Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and Hukam Singh were having one- fourth share, but they sold land in excess of their share. Rajender Parsad is R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 3 owner of two marlas land. Remaining proforma defendants 17 to 22 (in fact proforma defendants no.18 to 23) have sold three marlas land vide registered sale deed dated 06.04.1976 in favour of Lakha, Johra and Bahadur. Shri Lal, having 01 marla 10 sarsais share in the suit land, sold his said one-fourth share and plaintiffs were also party to the said sale deed as vendors. The said sale deed is valid. Defendants no.3 to 15 have sold the land to defendants no.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 23.07.1997 and also delivered possession to them on the spot. Plaintiffs have no concern with the suit land having already sold in excess of their share. Defendants no.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit land. Defendant no.15 broadly supported the case of the plaintiffs. Defendant no.16 pleaded that he has constructed his house over land purchased vide sale deed dated 13.12.1976. Plaintiffs and contesting defendants have no concern with the said land. He also pleaded that sale deed dated 04.03.1986 and sale deed dated 23.07.1997 have no effect on his rights and are illegal. Defendants no.21 and 22 pleaded that they purchased one marla land vide sale deed dated 24.02.1982 from Bansi Ram and are owners in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised by all the defendants. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 4 vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2007, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by plaintiff no.1 only has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 06.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff no.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that sale deed dated 04.03.1986 executed by Shri Lal in favour of defendants no.3 to 15 was cancelled by defendants no.3 to 15 vide cancellation deed dated 26.10.1986 (Ex.PW-5/A) and therefore, subsequent sale deed dated 23.07.1997 by defendants no.3 to 15 in favour of defendants no.1 and 2 regarding part of the suit land is null and void as defendants no.3 to 15 were not owners of the suit land while executing the said sale deed. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, which on first blush, appears to be very attractive, but on proper scrutiny, the same is found to be completely frivolous and meritless. Chander Singh (PW-5) allegedly proved the aforesaid cancellation deed. However, part cross-examination of Chander Singh (PW-5) was deferred and thereafter, he was not produced for further cross- examination. Consequently, statement of Chander Singh (PW-5) cannot be R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 5 taken into consideration. Resultantly, alleged cancellation deed (Ex.PW- 5/A) is not proved. In addition to the aforesaid, sale deed dated 04.03.1986 is registered one. However, the alleged cancellation deed dated 26.10.1986 is un-registered one. Consequently, said alleged un-registered cancellation deed could not legally cancel the registered sale deed dated 04.03.1986. Thus, the whole case of the plaintiffs based on cancellation deed is completely hollow and falls to the ground. On the contrary, mutation on the basis of sale deed dated 04.03.1986 was sanctioned in favour of defendants no.3 to 15. More than eleven years thereafter, they sold part of the suit land to defendants no.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 23.07.1997. Consequently, defendants no.1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers of the suit land for valuable consideration. For this reason also, the plaintiffs cannot succeed. There is also sale deed dated 13.12.1976 pleaded by proforma defendant no.16 (in fact proforma defendant no.17). There is also another sale deed dated 06.04.1976 executed by proforma defendants no.17 to 22 regarding three marlas land out of the suit land. There is also sale deed dated 24.02.1982 set up by proforma defendants no.21 and 22, vide which they purchased one marla land from Bansi Ram. All these sale deeds have not been challenged by plaintiffs. For this reason as well, the plaintiffs R. S. A. No. 537 of 2010 6 cannot succeed. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiffs. The said finding is fully supported by cogent reasons and is justified by the evidence on record. Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their case. There is practically no evidence to depict that plaintiffs and proforma respondents are owners or in possession of the suit land. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 03, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE