RSA No.2006 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2006 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.08.2010 Chand Singh .……Appellant Versus Jagsir Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate with Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 to 4. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Chand Singh-plaintiff having lost in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Defendant No.2 Piar Kaur (since deceased and represented by respondent Nos.2 to 4) was owner of 1/3rd share in 488 Kanals 16 marlas land. The plaintiff claims to have purchased 8 Kanals 18 marlas land vide sale deed dated 24.12.1980, 8 kanals land vide sale deed dated 17.07.1990, 8 kanals land vide sale deed dated 08.04.1991, 8 kanals land vide sale deed dated 27.12.1991 and 12 kanals land vide sale deed dated 14.12.1992 from Piar Kaur out of the aforesaid joint land and became owner in possession of land of specific killa numbers, sold to the plaintiff by Piar Kaur through the aforesaid sale deeds. The plaintiff also purchased 7 kanals 12 marlas land vide sale deed dated 01.07.1997 from Bhag RSA No.2006 of 2008 -2- Singh etc., who had purchased it from Piar Kaur. However, defendant-respondent No.1, who is grandson of Piar Kaur, claims decree dated 17.07.1990 in his favour suffered by Piar Kaur regarding 1/15th share in the aforesaid joint land. The plaintiff sought declaration that he is owner of 970/9776 share of 488 kanals 16 marlas land and decree dated 17.07.1990 obtained by defendant No.1 from defendant No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the suit land without notice of the alleged decree. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. Defendant No.1 claimed to have become owner of the suit land pursuant to decree dated 17.07.1990 and the land sold by Piar Kaur beyond her share to the plaintiff would not confer any title on the plaintiff on the excess land. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendant No.2 in her written statement admitted execution of first two sale deeds regarding 8 kanals 18 marlas land and regarding 8 kanals land whereas the other sale deeds subsequent to passing of decree dated 17.07.1990 were pleaded to be result of fraud. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 26.03.2008. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. RSA No.2006 of 2008 -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Insofar as sale deeds dated 24.12.1980 and 17.07.1990 are concerned, defendant No.1 is bound by the same because the same were executed before passing of decree dated 17.07.1990. Judgments of the Courts below, non-suiting the plaintiff regarding the land purchased by the plaintiff through the said two sale deeds, are patently perverse and illegal and, therefore, unsustainable giving rise to substantial question of law warranting interference in second appeal. As regards remaining sale deeds, the following substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal:- “ Whether finding of the Courts below that plaintiff is not bona fide purchaser of the suit land for consideration vide sale deeds executed after decree dated 17.07.1990 is illegal and perverse and, therefore, not sustainable?” Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the plaintiff is bona fide purchaser of the suit land for consideration without notice of decree dated 17.07.1990. It was contended that Piar Kaur vendor defendant No.2 was recorded as owner of the suit land in jamabandi for the year 1993-94. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that mutation on the basis of decree dated 17.07.1990 was entered on 10.04.1991 and sanctioned on 13.04.1991 and, therefore, it cannot be said that plaintiff was ignorant of decree dated 17.07.1990, even after the aforesaid mutation was entered and RSA No.2006 of 2008 -4- sanctioned. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The plaintiff cannot claim to be bona fide purchaser of the land purchased after sanctioning of aforesaid mutation on 13.04.1991 in favour of defendant No.1 on the basis of decree dated 17.07.1990. The plaintiff could be bona fide purchaser if after perusal of revenue record, he could not be aware of the aforesaid decree. However, after sanctioning of aforesaid mutation on the basis of the decree dated 17.07.1990, the plaintiff could very well be aware of the said decree by mere perusal of revenue record while purchasing the land thereafter from defendant No.2. Consequently, the plaintiff cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser of the land purchased vide sale deeds dated 27.12.1991 and 14.12.1992, long after the sanction of mutation on 13.04.1991 on the basis of decree dated 17.07.1990. However, even accepting contention of counsel for respondent No.1 based on the aforesaid mutation, sale of 8 kanals land in favour of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 08.04.1991 shall stand protected because the mutation was entered and sanctioned thereafter. Consequently, plaintiff is proved to be bona fide purchaser of the land vide sale deed dated 08.04.1991 for valuable consideration without notice of decree dated 17.07.1990. However, plaintiff is not bona fide purchaser of the land vide sale deeds dated 27.12.1991 and 14.12.1992. As regards 7 kanals 12 marlas land purchased by plaintiff from Bhag Singh etc. vide sale deed dated 01.07.1997, it has been pointed out by counsel for the appellant that Bhag Singh etc. were recorded to be purchasers of the said land in jamabandi for RSA No.2006 of 2008 -5- 1988-89 Ex.P-8 i.e since long before decree dated 17.07.1990 was passed and, therefore, the said land is also protected. There is considerable force in the contention. Since Piar Kaur had sold the said land to Bhag Singh etc. before suffering decree dated 17.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.1, the said sale is also protected and is not hit by the decree dated 17.07.1990. In view of aforesaid, substantial question of law framed hereinabove is answered to the effect that plaintiff is bona fide purchaser of land purchased from Piar Kaur vide sale deed dated 08.04.1991 and the said sale in favour of the plaintiff stands protected, but the plaintiff cannot be said to be bona fide purchaser of the land purchased by him from Piar Kaur vide sale deeds dated 27.12.1991 and 14.12.1992 and suit qua land of said sale deeds has to be dismissed. The plaintiff is proved to be bona fide purchaser of 7 kanals 12 marlas land from Bhag Singh etc. vide sale deed dated 01.07.1997 as Bhag Singh etc. had purchased the same from Piar Kaur before passing of decree dated 17.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.1. The plaintiff is entitled to succeed to the aforesaid extent. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant second appeal is allowed partly and judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is decreed partly holding that he is owner in possession of the land purchased by him vide sale deeds dated 24.12.1980, 17.07.1990 and 08.04.1991 from Piar Kaur and also of 7 kanals 12 marlas land purchased by the plaintiff from Bhag Singh etc. vide sale deed dated RSA No.2006 of 2008 -6- 01.07.1997 and has become co-sharer in the joint to that extent. It is also declared that decree dated 17.07.1990 passed in favour of defendant No.1 against defendant No.2 Piar Kaur shall have no bearing on the said land purchased by the plaintiff. However, the suit qua the remaining land purchased by the plaintiff from Piar Kaur vide sale deeds dated 27.12.1991 and 14.12.1992 is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. 11.08.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE