E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1. E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 Mukhtiar Singh son of Rala Singh ...Appellant Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents 2. E.S.A.No.1654 of 2001 Bansi son of Tant Ram ...Appellant Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents 3. E.S.A.No.1655 of 2001 Som Nath son of Ram Chander ...Appellant Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents 4. E.S.A.No.1656 of 2001 Dalip Singh son of Labh Singh ...Appellant Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents 5. C.R.No.5247 of 2001 Satya Rani wife of Gian Chand ...Petitioner Versus Puran Singh and others ...Respondents Date of Decision:-23.7.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 2 Present: Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for the appellants & petitioner. Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate with Mr.Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the aforementioned appeals/revision, arising out of the same impugned orders, therefore, I propose to dispose of all the matters by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the facts, which need a necessary mention, have been extracted from ESA No.1657 of 2001. 2. Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present appeals/petition and emanating from the records, are that originally, Puran Singh son of Bela Singh respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) instituted Civil Suit No.12 on 7.1.1983, for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.5.1976, against defendants Bansi son of Tant Ram, Smt. Satya Rani wife of Gian Chand. Subsequent purchasers Raj Kumar son of Smt.Kanta Devi, Prem Nath son of Richhpal, Om Parkash son of Pehlad Rai, Kulwant Singh son of Mangal Singh and Umaid Singh son of Richhpal Singh were subsequently added as defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) 3. The trial Court decreed the suit and directed the defendants to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff, after receiving the remaining sale consideration within two months, failing which, he (plaintiff) was held entitled to execute the sale deed through Court, vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.1991. During the pendency of the suit, the original owner Bansi sold his entire land in dispute to his subsequent vendees, despite the injunction order issued by the trial Court. Not only that, the subsequent vendees had further alienated the suit land to various persons for different registered sale deeds. 4. At the very outset, it would be essential to re-capitulate the status, depicted in the status report supplied by the learned counsel for the respondents, in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, which is as under:- E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 3 BANSI (Respondent No.2/J.D.No.1) (Auction Purchaser) Vendor (70 Kanal 6 Marlas) became owner in possession ' vide conveyance deed dated ' 29.01.1982. ' ' Puran Singh (Respondent No.1 (Vendee) Vide agreements dated Purchased 40 Kanal 2 Marla 31.5.1976 & 27.6.1981 land on 24/25.3.1982 ' ' ' Satya Rani (Respondent No.3/J.D.No.2) Became owner vide mutation No.752 dt.9.2.1983 ' ' __________'_______________________________________________ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Som Nath Kishan Singh Amar Singh & Santokh Singh (Appellant in ESA purchased land Kaushalya Kaur, s/o Kartar Singh & No.1655/01) measuring 24 Kanal w/o Jeet Singh Anokh Singh, s/o purchased land 0 Marla out of 40 K purchased land Kartar Singh measuring 6 Kanal 2 M vide sale deed measuring 3 kanals purchased 3 kanal vide sale deed no.2062 dt. 25.6.86 out of 40 Kanals land out of 40 K dt.16.6.1986. and vide mutation 2 Marlas vide sale 2 M vide sale deed No.947 dt.9.7.1990. Deed No.1291 No.1290 dt.19.5.1989 ' Dated 19.5.1989 & ' mutation No.1134 ' _________________'_____________________ ' ' ' ' ' ' Appellant/proforma Appellant/Proforma Appellant/Proforma Respondent No.9 Respondent No.10 Respondent No.11 Mahender Lal Usha Rani Dharam Pal purchased land purchased land purchased land 8 kanal out of 24 8 kanal out of 24 8 Kanal out of 24 Kanal vide sale Kanal vide sale Kanal vide sale deed No.2913 deed No.3226 deed No.2914 dated 9.7.1990 dated 27.7.1990 dated 9.7.1990 vide mutation vide mutation. vide mutation. No.____ No._____ No.____ ' ' _______________________________________________________________' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Raj Kumar & Prem Nath Om Parkash Kulwant Singh Umed Singh Smt.Kanta Devi Respondent No.5/ Respondent Respondent No.7/ Respondent D/o Chhittar Mal J.D.No.4 No.6/JD No.5 JDNo.6 No.8/JD No.7 Respondent No.4/ J.D.No.3 purchased 20 Purchased 2 Purchased 2 Purchased 2 Purchased 2 E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 4 kanals land Kanal land kanal land kanal land kanal land vide sale deed vide sale deed vide sale deed vide sale deed vide sale No.2652/1 No.2888/1 No.2886/1 No.2887/1 deed No.2885/1 dt.19.8.1983 dt.14.9.1983 dt.14.9.1983 dt.14.9.1983 dt.14.9.1983. ' '________________________ ' ' Malak Singh s/o Kehar Singh & Smt.Amar Kaur w/o Kehar Singh purchased land measuring 20 kanals vide sale deed dated 27.1.1989 and mutation No.1094 dated 23.3.1989. ' ' _____________'_____________ ' ' ' ' Mukhtiar Singh Gurnam Singh Appellant purchased land purchased land measuring 10 kanals measuring 10 kanals out of 20 kanals vide out of 20 kanal vide sale deed dt.___ sale deed dt.23.4.90 and became owner and became owner & and vide mutation vide mutation No.1270. No.1271 dt.19.9.91. ' ' Sardar Dalip Singh purchased land 10 Kanals out of 20 kanals vide sale deed dated 23.8.1994 and Mutation No.1929. 5. As the defendants did not execute the sale deed, therefore, the plaintiff filed the execution petition. Instead of complying with the decree, the appellant-objectors (subsequent vendees) filed a variety of sets of objections to the execution petition, inter-alia, terming themselves to be in possession as bonafide purchasers of the suit property. The objection petitions filed by them were dismissed by the Executing Court, vide impugned orders. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned orders of the Executing Court, they (objectors) filed the appeals, which were dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned orders dated 3.5.2001. 7. The appellant-objectors still did not feel satisfied with the impugned orders of the Courts below and filed the present appeals and revision petition. That E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 5 is how, I am seized of the matter. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the material on record and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeals/revision. 9. However, the main celebrated argument of the learned counsel that as the appellant-objectors are subsequent bonafide purchasers and in possession of the land in dispute, therefore, the decree cannot be executed against them, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 10. Above being the position on record, now the core question, that arises for determination in the appeals/revision, is whether the present objectors (subsequent purchasers) are bonafide purchasers or not? 11. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, relatable to the material on record, to my mind, the plea of bonafide purchasers is not available to the appellant-objectors. 12. As is evident from the record that having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell, vide judgment and decree dated 1.5.1991, which had already attained the finality. The earlier objection petitions filed by appellants Mukhtiar Singh and others have already been dismissed besides dismissal of their suits as well, by the different Courts. 13. The trial Court, in the original suit, inter-alia, framed issue No.11-A to the effect that “whether defendant Nos.3 to 7 are bonafide purchasers of the suit land without any notice and burden of proof was placed on them”. The defendants did not produce any evidence in this respect and the Court recorded the finding in the following manner:- “No evidence has been led by the defendant nos.2 to 7 (3 to 7) to prove this issue. The present suit was instituted on 8.1.83 alongwith an application for interim injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 6 and 2 from alienating the suit land. On this application, ad interim injunction was granted by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat vide his order dated 8.1.83 and the defendants were restrained from alienating the suit land and to maintain status quo regarding possession. This order of ex parte injunction was never modified, therefore, it is still in existence. It shows that defendant no.1 had sold remaining part of the suit land to defts.nos.3 to 7 in utter disregard to the stay order issued by the court. Therefore, this issue is decided against the defendants.” 14. That means, once the defendants No.3 to 7 (vendors) were not held to be bonafide purchasers, then the question of bonafide purchasers of their subsequent vendees did not arise at all, under the present set of circumstances, as urged on their behalf. 15. The matter did not rest there. It is not a matter of dispute that appellant Mukhtiar Singh filed Civil Suit No.875 of 1991 titled as “Mukhtiar Singh v. Puran, seeking a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants. This suit remained pending for more than four years and was ultimately dismissed in default under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC, vide order dated 20.10.1995. Thereafter, Mukhtiar Singh alongwith other subsequent vendees, namely, Dharam Pal, Mohinder Lal and Smt.Usha Rani, still filed another Civil Suit bearing No.405 of 16.4.1998 for a decree of declaration to the effect that the main decree dated 1.5.1991 is illegal, null and void, as Puran Singh respondent (plaintiff) obtained the same in connivance with defendant Nos.2 to 8. The suit remained pending for about three years and it was again dismissed in default, vide order dated 19.5.2001. The objection petition filed by appellant-objector Mukhtiar Singh against the execution of the indicated decree was dismissed and the order dismissing the objection became final. Still, he filed second set of objection petition in the E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 7 executing Court. 16. Sequelly, Som Nath objector filed civil suit claiming himself to be bonafide purchaser for consideration and without notice. The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.9.1995. The appeal filed by Som Nath was also dismissed by the Ist Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 29.8.2000. Regular Second Appeal bearing No.736 of 2001 filed by him titled as “Som Nath v. Puran” was also dismissed by this Court on 18.8.2003, the operative part of which is as under:- “The learned trial court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, held that the sale in favour of the plaintiff was hit by the doctrine of lis-pendence. In fact Satya Rani-vendor of the plaintiff had sold the property in dispute to the plaintiff in violation of the injunction orders. In any case, the plaintiff was bound by the decree dated May 1,1991 against Satya Rani-vendor. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The matter was taken up in appeal. The learned first Appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and came to the similar conclusions, as were arrived at by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record in any manner. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present case. No merit. Dismissed.” 17. Meaning thereby, the question of bonafide purchasers of subsequent vendees (objectors), the validity of the main decree and all other relatable questions, now sought to be taken in the instant objections and rights and liabilities of the parties, have already been decided against the appellants by different Courts. Thus, the filing of the present set of objections is a clear ill-device adopted by them with a sole intention to delay the execution petitions and nothing else. E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 8 18. Faced with the situation, the next argument of the learned counsel that since defendants Bansi and Satya Rani were never served in main suit nor they had engaged Mr.Randhir Singh Ghanghas, Advocate, nor signed any power of attorney, so, the impugned decree is a result of fraud obtained by the plaintiff in collusion with Mr.Randhir Singh Ghanghas, Advocate, is again not tenable. The bare perusal of the trial court record would reveal that the main suit was instituted on 7.1.1983 and it was entrusted to Sub Judge Ist Class, Panipat on 8.1.1983. The trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating and also directed them to maintain status quo with regard to possession of the suit land till further orders and issued notices to the defendants for 15.2.1983. They were duly served and Mr.Randhir Singh Ghanghas, Advocate appeared and filed first memo of appearance and later on power of attorney (vakalatnama) on their behalf. 19. Not only that, the reply filed by them to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC bears the signatures of Satya Wanti and thumb impressions of Bansi. Likewise, Satya Rani wife of Gian Chand sworn affidavit and signed as Satya Wanti in support of her reply. Even the written statement filed by them also bears the signatures of Satya Wanti and thumb impressions of Bansi defendant. Satya Wanti duly signed power of attorney in favour of Mr.Randhir Singh Ghanghas, Advocate and defendant Bansi thumb marked the same, which is available at page 179 of the trial court record. It means, it stands established on record that defendants Bansi and Satya Wanti were duly served, engaged their Advocate, signed power of attorney (vakalatnama) and filed reply/written statement in the main suit. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that they never engaged Mr.Randhir Singh Ghanghas Advocate or the plaintiff obtained the decree with his collusion, as urged on behalf of the appellant- objectors. 20. The last feeble argument of the learned counsel that since the trial Court did not grant decree of possession, so, the same cannot be executed, is E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 9 neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in case Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Daulat & Anr. 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 1 (S.C.), are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, in which, while noticing section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it was observed that “sub-section (1) is an enabling provision. A plaintiff in a suit of specific performance may ask for further reliefs mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Clause (a) contains reliefs of possession and partition and separate possession of the property, in addition to specific performance. The mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 22 is that no relief under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be granted by the Court unless it has been specifically claimed.” 21. Possibly no one can dispute with regard to these observations but the same would not come to the rescue of the appellant-objectors. As is clear from the record that the plaintiff Puran Singh filed the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. It is so depicted in the decree dated 1.5.1991, vide which, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. That means, the plaintiff has claimed the possession and specific performance of the agreement to sell and in a suit for specific performance for sale of immovable property, it is implied that delivery of its possession is a part of decree for specific performance of the contract. Moreover, as the appellant-objectors have been held to be not bonafide purchasers, therefore, even they have no locus standi to raise such frivolous objections. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for appellant-objectors “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 22. Thus, it would be seen that the bare perusal of the record as discussed here-in-above would reveal that the intention and motives of the appellants are clear and implicit. Not only that, they adopted various methods to drag the plaintiff-decree holder in variety of litigation, but remained successful in considerably delaying the execution of the decree as well. They have also tried to E.S.A.No.1657 of 2001 with connected cases 10 over reach the process of law. 23. As strange as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency of the people repeatedly filing such objections, in order to delay the execution petitions and misusing the process of law, have been tremendously increasing day by day and the instant appeals are burning examples of such like cases, which deserve to be dismissed with heavy costs, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 24. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 25. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the present appeals and revision petition are hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each appeal and revision. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 23.7.2010 Judge AS