RSA No.2558 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.7481-C of 2008 and RSA No.2558 of 2008 Date of Decision: 01.12.2008 Raghbir ....appellant Versus Ranjit Singh .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. CM No.7481-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the civil miscellaneous application, delay of 110 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2558 of 2008 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed executed on 20.05.1993 in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.17,000/- and further for a direction to the defendant to get registered the sale deed and effect mutation in the Revenue Record, has been dismissed. As per the plaintiff an agreement took place on 23.03.1990, wherein the defendant Ranjit Singh agreed to hand over the possession and ownership rights regarding the suit property and in pursuance of this agreement he executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.05.1993 and also handed over the possession. Since then the plaintiff RSA No.2558 of 2008 2 is owner in possession of the suit land along with the other land owned by him. However, due to some reasons the sale deed dated 20.05.1993 was not got registered by the defendant. The plaintiff requested the defendant number of times to get the sale deed registered but when the defendant refused to do so, it necessitated to file the suit. Upon notice, the defendant filed written statement taking some preliminary objections. On merits, it was denied by the respondent/defendant that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and even denied that appellant/plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. In fact, the respondent/defendant never executed any alleged sale deed dated 20.05.1993 in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. The alleged sale deed, if any, is forged and fictitious document not executed by the respondent/defendant. Further, the respondent/defendant also denied the execution of any agreement dated 23.03.1990 and 23.05.1990. Further, it was submitted that in fact, the respondent/defendant is owner of suit property and the appellant/plaintiff has got no concern with the suit property. Further, it was also denied that the respondent/defendant appointed Darshan Singh as his special power of attorney. Rest of everything was denied by the respondent/defendant in his written statement and it was submitted that the suit be dismissed with costs. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.02.2005. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.07.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal in this Court challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings of the Courts below are contrary to the evidence on record. The appellant has fully established on the record that RSA No.2558 of 2008 3 defendant/respondent had handed over possession of 1 kanal 14 marlas of land to the appellant and the execution of the sale deed has also been fully proved on the record which was executed by the respondent and was also signed by the attesting witnesses who had supported the version of the appellant, as well. Thus, the findings of the Courts below are liable to be reversed in favour of the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. However, I find no merit in this appeal. In this case, the appellant has not placed on record the sale deed dated 20.05.1993 allegedly executed by the respondent. Though the appellant never moved any application for production of the original sale deed dated 20.05.1993 and the agreement dated 23.03.1990. Rather, it was the respondent who moved an application for production of the above documents as a fake plea was taken by the appellant that they were withheld by the respondent. However, later on, the trial Court vide order dated 14.09.2001 granted permission to the appellant to lead secondary evidence to prove the sale deed dated 20.05.1993 and the agreement dated 23.03.1990 but even then the appellant could not prove the execution of the sale deed dated 20.05.1993 and agreement dated 23.03.1990. The Courts below have also recorded a finding of fact that appellant has taken a contradictory stand to put forth a false claim. Though, the plaintiff-appellant has produced PW2 Mohan Singh, PW3 Gurdev Singh and PW4 Narinder Kumar, Deed Writer, but the evidence so led by the appellant does not lead to the conclusion that the respondent had ever executed any sale deed dated 20.05.1993 in favour of the appellant. It was incumbent upon the appellant to have produced and placed on record the sale deed dated 20.05.1993 allegedly executed by the respondent. The appellant has miserably failed to prove his case. In view of the above facts, I do not find any merit in this RSA No.2558 of 2008 4 appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.12.2008 neenu