R.S.A.No. 4105 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4105 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Ram Kishan and others ......Appellants Versus Manohar Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for declaration, which was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 4105 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “2. Plaintiffs/appellants have filed the present suit on the plea that one Shri Sarda Ram son of Jingam Ram, father of the plaintiff Basant Ram, Vidya Devi and Satya Devi was owner of the land measuring 11 kanals 16 marlas situated at village Anandpur, Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur. He was allotted this land vide conveyance deed dated 19.5.1974. Plaintiffs have claimed that Sarda Ram remained confined in the bed from 19.5.1974 to 31.8.1974, the day he expired. He left behind plaintiffs No.1 to 3 named above and Smt.Malan Devi as his wife as legal heirs. Malan Devi died on 29.5.1987. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Sarda Ram used to sign throughout his life and that sale deeds claimed by the defendants No. 1 to 7 in their favour are never executed by Sarda Ram and are result of forgery and fraud. That on the intervening night of 22/23.8.1993, defendant No.1 Manohar Lal forcibly occupied 3 kanals 4 marlas of land and enclosed the same with barbed wires and also built a small store forcibly without any right. Hence, the present suit filed for declaration and mandatory injunction. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants and defendants No.1,3 to 7 contested the suit. They pleaded that Sarda Ram executed the sale deeds dated R.S.A.No. 4105 of 2009 (O&M) 3 14.6.1974 Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 in their favour. Mutation has been sanctioned in their favour and their names have been reflected in the revenue record since 1974 after sanctioning of the mutation in their favour. Defendants claimed to be in possession of 3 kanals 4 marlas of land since then. They pleaded the suit to be time barred. Defendants No.4 to 12 have been unnecessarily impleaded who are sons and daughters of Basant Ram plaintiff No.1. Defendant No.2 appeared in the court and filed separate written statement admitting the contents of the plaint.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land measuring 11 kls 16 mls? OPP 2. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of the parties? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPP 4. Whether the sale deeds in favour of defendants No. 1, 3 to 7 in respect to the suit land are perfectly legal and valid? OPD 5. Whether the suit is liable to be set aside under the provisions of Section 10 CPC? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to R.S.A.No. 4105 of 2009 (O&M) 4 file the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the possession of the defendants over the suit land is perfectly legal and valid? OPD 8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPD 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPD 10. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners of the land in dispute and the sale deeds in favour of the defendants were result of fraud and fabricated documents. The question involved in this case is whether the sale deeds Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4 had been executed by Sarda Ram in favour of Manohar Lal-respondent No.1. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their case. The defendant examined DW-1 Dinesh Kumar Mahajan to prove that the sale deeds in question were scribed by his father deceased Faqir Chand Mahajan. DW-3 Ashwani Kumar son of Mulakh Raj, attesting witness, was examined to prove the signatures of deceased Mulakh Raj. The sale deeds were duly registered by the Sub Registrar. In the presence of the Sub Registrar, Sarda Ram thumb marked the endorsement. DW-6 Chetan Dev Chopra R.S.A.No. 4105 of 2009 (O&M) 5 deposed with regard to the registration of the sale deeds. The fact that Sarda Ram had thumb marked the endorsement does not lead to the inference that the sale deeds had not been executed by him as the learned counsel has failed to point out from the record that the thumb impressions on the endorsements of the sale deeds were not of Sarda Ram. Mutations Ex.D-12 to D-15 were sanctioned with regard to the sale deeds Ex.D-1 to D-4, which were executed on 14.6.1974. The mutations were sanctioned in the presence of Basant Ram. However, at that time, no objection was raised by Basant Ram qua the execution of the sale deeds. As per the revenue record, defendants are co-sharers in the suit land on the basis of the sale deeds Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4. The sale deeds in question were not challenged up to the year 1994. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2009 anita