RSA No. 2680 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2680 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: March 15 , 2010 Nirmal Singh and others ...... Appellants Versus Ramjan and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents that they were the owners of the land in dispute and that the sale deed executed in favour of the appellants by respondents No. 3 and 4 was illegal, null and void. Admittedly, the property in dispute was owned by one Habib Shah who died issueless leaving behind only one legal representative Nasiban daughter of his brother Ali Baksh. Respondents No. 1 and 2 are sons of Nasiban d/o Ali Baksh. It is not disputed that the name of the mother of respondents No. 3 and 4 was also Nasiban though she is not the RSA No. 2680 of 2008(O&M) 2 daughter of Ali Baksh. Both the Courts found that Nasiban d/o Ali Baksh had left behind respondents No. 1 and 2 as her only legal heirs and thus the sale deed by the proforma respondents No. 3 and 4 (who were sons of some other Nasiban) could not transfer any title on the appellants. The following questions have been proposed:- I. Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are protected under Section 4 of the Transfer of Property Act? II.Whether there was no circumstances which should have led the appellant to go behind the revenue record and make further inquiry before execution of the sale deed? III.Whether the appellants in dealing with the property took reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had the power to make the transfer and had acted in good faith at the time of registration of the sale deed? IV.Whether the appellants are bona fide purchasers for consideration and were not obliged to make further inquiry when the revenue record was in favour of the vendors? It would be seen that all the four questions are overlapping questions. Learned counsel has relied upon Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh(Dead) through LRs reported as 2004 AIR (SC) 4980, Anup Singh v. Smt. Bachni alias Bachan Kaur reported as 1996(3) PLR 184 and Veero v. Shiv Singh reported as 1999(3) RCR (Civil) 457 to canvass that in certain cases even a purchaser from a person who is not the real owner can be protected. However, the facts of these three cases are totally distinguishable. In the case of Crystal Developers v. Smt. Asha Lata Ghosh (supra) it was found that the real owner kept quiet for a period of 11 years by which time the purchaser had demolished the old building, constructed a multistorey building and got freed the property from all RSA No. 2680 of 2008(O&M) 3 encumbrances. The Court found that the heir allowed the vendor to represent to the purchaser that he was the owner of the suit premises. In the case of Anup Singh v. Smt. Bachni alias Bachan Kaur (supra) also what turned the issue was the fact that the real owner allowed the vendor to represent to the purchaser that he was a true owner. Even in the case of Veero v. Shiv Singh (supra) it was found that the decree in favour of the vendor had subsisted for more than 12 years. In the present case Nasiban d/o Ali Baksh had admittedly been agitating her rights and has rather won a litigation against the father of respondents No. 3 and 4. Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 15, 2010 sunita