R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2009 Daljit Singh ....appellant versus Romel Singh and others ....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. This order shall dispose of R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 and R.S.A. No. 2567 of 2007 both titled Daljit Singh Vs. Romel Singh and others, as they arise out of common judgment and decree. The plaintiff/respondents brought a suit for declaration and injunction by pleading therein as under: - "Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff/respondents in civil suit titled as Mohinder Singh etc. Versus Daljit Singh and others, is that defendant No. 2 has no concern with Tarlok Singh (It has been pleaded by plaintiff/respondents as Talok Singh, whereas defendants have pleaded him as Tarlok Singh alias Talok Singh. For avoiding any confusion, this person herein after is referred as Tarlok Singh). He is son of Mehar R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -2- Singh and lives with him at Patiala. He was never adopted by Tarlok Singh as wrongly alleged and was never treated as his son by Tarlok Singh duering his life time. He has been put up by defendant No. 1 to defeat the claim of the plaintiff/respondents. Tarlok Singh, deceased son of Kartar Singh was real brother of the plaintiff/respondents. He was owner of land measuring 10 kanals comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No. 69/85 and Khasra Nos. 9//15/2 (5-16), 10//11/2/1 (4-4) situated in the revenue estate of village Railon Khurd, Tehsil and District Ropar as per the jamabandi for the year 1993-94. Said Tarlok Singh was widower and issueless person. He lived with the plaintiff/respondents and vide writing dated 23.3.1996 had certified that he is being looked after by the plaintiff/respondents. He was of the age of 80 years and his back bone had broken. Due to this reason, he was suffering from severe pain and was unable to walk or stand. Balbir Singh plaintiff got him admitted in the civil hospital, Ropar on 25.3.1996 at 2.30 pm, but he could not recover and was discharged on 9.5.1996. He developed heart problem. He was again brought to the civil hospital on 28.5.1996 at about 3.00 pm and was kept in emergency ward. When his condition deteriorated, he has shown as admitted in the hospital at 5.30 pm. He expired on the same dated at 5.45 pm. The defendants are very shrewed persons. They had no connection or relation with Tarlok Singh. The appellant/defendant No. 1 is himself an advocate and had R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -3- influence with Revenue Officer. In order to grab the property of Tarlok Singh, he forged a sale deed dated 28.5.1996 on which date Tarlok Singh died in the hospital, with the connivance of the Deed Writer, som Oath Commissioner, the Registration Clerk and Sub Registrar, Ropar. The said forged sale deed is alleged to have been executed by Tarlok Singh in his favour in respect of the suit land by putting up an imposter in his place. The photo of Tarlok Singh was easily available and he made use of the same fraudulently, although Tarlok Singh was unconscious and unable to walk due to the broken back bone (chula) and hear ailments. He was even unable to stand or speak or to make any statement. At the time of alleged proceedings of the alleged sale deed Tarlok Singh was out of senses and was suffering from heart attack and his back bone was broken and he was unable to walk or stand. No amount was paid even at the time of registration or before that. Therefore, the sale deed alleged to be executed on 28.5.1996 is illegal, forged, void and have no effect in the eyes of law. It passes no title to the defendants in respect of the suit land. The suit land has devlved upon the plaintiff/respondents being the sole heirs of Tarlok Singh deceased. The plaintiff/respondents are in possession of the suit land as heirs of Tarlok Singh after his death as owners and during his life time also, they used to cultivate his land as he was unable to even stand. The defendants on the basis of alleged forged sale deed in connivance with the Police, Revenue Officer are trying R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -4- to take illegal and forcibly possession of the suit land from the plaintiff/respondents without any right. They have flatly refused to the request of the plaintiff/respondents. Hence, the suit." The suit was contested by defendants on the following pleadings: - "Upon notice, defendants appeared and contested the suit. Appellant/defendant No. 1 has filed separate written statement and in the preliminary objections it has been pleaded that plaintiff/respondents have no locus standi to file the present suit. They are not legal heirs of Tarlok Singh and are not connected with the suit land in any manner. In fact, Tarlok Singh had adopted, Inder Pal Singh, defendant, as his son vide registered adoption deed dated 6.10.1989. However, Inder Pal Singh never resided with Tarlok Singh and he was having his separate residence at Patiala, where he still lives with his natural parents. He is having his vote and ration card at Patiala. Inder Pal Singh never served Tarlok Singh even after him. He has also failed to provide any financial help to Tarlok Singh. It has been further contended that plaintiff/respondents are estopped by their act and conduct to file the present suit. They have never served Tarlok Singh, deceased and never lived with him. They never looked after hi. He never executed any document in their favour. The plaintiff/respondents were having litigation with the Tarlok Singh. In fact, Tarlok Singh was in need of money for his R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -5- treatment and as such, he received Rs. One lack. At his house from appellant/defendant No. 1 for the execution of the sale deed and he received Rs.50,000/- by draft/pay order before the Sub Registrar, Ropar on 28.5.1996 at the time of registration of the sale deed after its execution. He appeared before the Sub Registrar in person and admitted the execution of the sale deed and further admitted the receipt of the entire sale consideration of rs.1,50,000/- for the execution of the sale deed. He had himself come to the petition writer for the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed was executed by him out of his free will and consent. There was no pressure on him and there was no mis-representation or coercion. The sale consideration of rs.1,50,000/- was actually paid to him and he admitted the receipt thereof before the Sub Registrar. Ther eis no question of putting up an imposter as alleged by the plaintiff/respondents as the photograph of Tarlok Singh is affixed on the sale deed dated 28.5.1996. The sale deed was registered by the Sub Registrar, Ropar, after due verification. Tarlok Singh had himself purchased the stamp paper for the execution of the sale deed and he himself had deposited the requisite amount in the bank. The appellant/defendant No. 1 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration. On merits, it has been contended that plaintiff/respondents and defendant No. 2 have no concern with the suit land as Tarlok Singh had sold the same to appellant/defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed dated 28.5.1996. He also delivered possession of the suit land R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -6- to appellant/defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 rendered no financial help to Tarlok Singh and never sent him any money. The plaintiff/respondents and defendant No. 2 are hand in glove with each other. They want to harm the interest of appellant/defendant No. 1 in connivance with each other. The plaintiff/respondents were having cordial relations with Tarlok Singh. Tarlok Singh lived separately from the plaintiff/respondents. The plaintiff/respondents rather wanted to deprive him of his land. One of the plaintiff/respondents namely Balbir Singh even got the stamp paper issued from the treasury for getting the sale deed executed from Tarlok Singh by playing fraud and without the payment of any consideration. However, Tarlok Singh was a prudent and educated person having studied upto M.Sc., so he foiled the attempt. He was aged about 70 years and could walk and perform his daily and routine affairs. He understand everything and had a sound diposing mind. Though, he was a heart patient, he was having a good health till last. He had served as Assistant Manager in Military Dairy Farm and was a pensioner. He never suffered any fracture of back bone as alleged. In fact, he had suffered only a minor fracture of one thigh and due to this he remained in the hospital for some days. After the treatment, he had fully recovered and walked without difficulty and attended all his daily affairs. He was not handicapped or incapacitated. He was helathy and had a good physique. The fracture absolutely had no effect on his R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -7- mental health. He could move and there was no obstruction or impediment regarding his movement. He was not brought to the Civil Hospital on 28.5.1996 at 3.00 pm and was kept in emergency as alleged. In fact at 3.00 pm he was present in the Tehsil Complex, Ropar for the execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of appellant/defendant No.1. It was much after the execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of appellant/defendant No. 1 that he suffered a severe heart attack and died. At the time of execution and registration of the sale deed, he was in sound disposing mind and showed no signs of heart problem. He was hale and hearty. Denying the pleadings of the plaintiff/respondents, it has been contended that the photographs of Tarlok Singh is affixed on the sale deed and same was registered by the Sub Registrar after due verification. The sale deed dated 28.5.1996 is a genuine legal document executed by Tarlok Singh out of his free will and for consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The sale deed is binding on all legal heirs of Tarlok Singh. The plaintiff/respondents and defendant No. 2 want to take undue advantage of the health of Tarlok Singh on the very day of the execution of the sale deed and facts have been mis stated out of greediness. They have no right, title or interest in the suit land. The plaintiff/respondents never came in possession of the suit land. Even the other land of the plaintiff/respondents besides the suit land was in cultivating possession of Tarlok Singh and his dispossession had been stayed by the Hon'ble R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -8- High Court where an appeal was pending in between him and the plaintiff/respondents. Since the date of delivering of possession of the suit land by Tarlok Singh on the execution of the sale deed, appellant/defendant No. 1 is in continuing possession of the same. The draft of Rs.50,000/- given to Tarlok Singh before the Sub Registrar on the day of execution of execution and registration of the sale deed was presented by Inder Pal Singh, defendant No. 2, for encashment in the State Bank of Patiala, Main Branch, Ropar, after the death of Tarlok Singh. Inder Pal Singh signed one voucher. The presentation of the draft for encashment by Inder Pal Singh amounts to admission of execution and registration and genineness of the sale deed dated 28.5.1996. The sale deed was scribed by deed writer on the instructions of Tarlok Singh and is attested by Sohan Singh and Jaspal Singh, witnesses. It was signed by Tarlok Singh, vendor and Daljit Singh, vendee. After the completion of formalities before the scribe, sale deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar. There again Tarlok Singh in token of its correctness, presentation, execution and consent for registration signed the endorsement before the Sub Registrar. Again, it was attested by the same witness. Tarlok Singh was physically present at that time and his photo was also pasted on the sale deed. The sale price was fixed in good faith and was actually paid to Tarlok Singh. When the appellant/defendant No. 1 is in lawful possession over the suit land being owner, no question of trying to take R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -9- forcible possession of the suit land arrives. Denying any merit in the suit, its dismissal with special costs is prayed." Whereas defendant No. 2 contested the suit on the following ground: - "On the other hand, defendant No. 2 has also contested the suit on the ground that Tarlok Singh had no son or daugher. Hence, he adopted defendant No. 2 as his son. Mehar Singh son of Mohinder Singh and Karam Kaur wife of Mehar Singh had give defendant No. 2 in adoption to Tarlok Singh and had put the defendant No. 2 in the lap of Tarlok Singh and his wife Baldev Kaur. Thereafter, Tarlok Singh and his wife alongwith Mehar Singh and Karam Kaur got scribed the adoption deed dated 6.10.1989 from a petition writer and the same was duly signed by Tarlok Singh. Baldev Kaur, Mehar Singh and Karam Kaur. Thereafter, they presented the same before the Sub Registrar, Ropar on 6.10.1989 and the same was attested by Sub Registrar, on the said date. Defendant No. 2 is the adopted son of Tarlok Singh. Appellant/defendant No. 1 Daljit Singh has signed the adoption deed as attesting witness. All the ceremonies prevalent in the family of defendant No. 2 were performed in adoption. Baldev Kaur wife of Tarlok Singh had pre-deceased hi. Defendant No. 2 was looking after his parents Tarlok Singh and Baldev Kaur. The writing dated 23.2.1996 is a forged and fabricated one having no value and effect on the rights of defendant No. 2. At the time of death Tarlok Singh was aged about 85 years. His back R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -10- bone was fractured and he was suffering from severe pain and was unable to walk or stand. He was admitted in the civil hospital, Ropar, in the month of March, 1996, but he could not recover and was discharged in the first week of May, 1996. During this period, his eife Baldev Kaur also fallen ill and Tarlok Singh became more weak on the account of said reason. The result was that he was not in a position to speak and was unable to understand and had a stammering voice. Finally, he died on 28.5.1996 in between 5.00 pm to 5.45 pm in the civil hospital, Ropar. Appellant/defendant No. 1 is a practicing lawyer at Ropar and had influence in the revenue staff, which is having the value of more than Rs.50 lacs, he forged the sale deed on 28.5.1996 on the day of his death in connivance with Deed Writer, Registration Clerk and Sub Registrar, Tarlok Singh has never executed any sale deed on 28.5.1996 in favour of Daljit Singh, appellant/defendant. No person from the village of Tarlok Singh and from the village of Daljit Singh was joined as a witness to the said sale deed. Two practicing lawyers at Ropar joined with Daljit Singh and signed the sale deed at his instance. Tarlok Singh had lost all his senses much before 28.5.1996 and he was unable to stand, speak or move. No consideration was passed. The said sale deed is without consideration and has no effect on the rights of the defendant No. 2. It is only the defendant No. 2 who has acquired the right and title in the suit land after the death of Tarlok Singh. The plaintiff/respondents are not the first class R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -11- legal heirs of Tarlok Singh. Tarlok Singh has died in mysterious circumstances. Daljit Singh appellant/defendant No. 1 had the eyes on defendant No. 2 after the death of Tarlok Singh. He had gone to State Bank of Patiala at Rupnagar in order to find out the account of Tarlok Singh. He also came to defendant No. 2 and filled up a form with his own hand stating that with this application defendant No. 2 will be in a position to withdraw the amount from the account of Tarlok Singh. Lateron, defendant No. 2 came to know that he has presented a draft for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the State Bank of Patiala. Defendant No. 2 is the owner in possession of the suit land and further declaring that the sale deed dated 28.5.1996 is illegal, null and void is prayed. It is pertinent to mention here that Inder Pal Singh had filed a separate suit to challenge the sale deed which was also contested, however, both the suits were ordered to be consolidated by the learned trial Court. After the filing of replication, learned trial Court was pleased to frame the following issues: - ".1 Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the declaration prayed for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction prayed for? OPP. 4. Whether the sale deed dated 28.5.1996 is forged document as alleged? OPP. 5. Whether plaintiffs have locus standi to file the R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -12- present suit? OPP 6. Whether the sale deed dated 28.5.1996 is genuine? OPD 7. Whether defendant is a bonafide purchaser for consideration? OPD. 8. Whether suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 9. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD 9-A. Whether defendant No. 2 is adopted son of Tarlok Singh alias Tarlok Singh? OPD 10. Relief." Learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding that sale deed dated 28.5.1996 was neither a genuine document nor defendant No. 1 could be said to be bona fide purchaser for consideration, as it was a forged document. The learned trial Court reached this conclusion keeping in view the fact that it was an admitted case of the parties that on 25.3.1996, deceased Tarlok Singh was admitted in civil hospital, Ropar at 2.30 pm. As per record of the hospital, he was discharged on 9.5.1996, till then he remained in the hospital. While in hospital, he was operated upon by doctor Surjit Singh, Orthopaedic Surgeon with the civil hospital, Ropar. The doctor was examined by the plaintiff/respondents. The doctor opined that Tarlok Singh was got admitted by Balbir Singh, one of the plaintiffs, and at that time, Tarlok Singh was not in a position to walk and climb stairs. He was able to walk with support of crutches without bearing any weight on the injured side. He was aged 85 years and was brought by way of lift. Daljit Singh appellant/defendant No. 1 was also said to be present when Tarlok Singh gave his consent for operation. A certificate was R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -13- also produced showing that Tarlok Singh needed complete rest for about three months w.e.f. 9.5.1996. Even at the time of his discharge, he was not in a position to walk freely, but with the help of crutches without putting weight on the injured side. However, he was reported to be mentally sound and was able to sit and work with his hands. The learned trial Court also observed that the deed writer, appellant/defendant No. 1, Jaspal Singh and Sohan Singh, attesting witnesses of the sale deed and Harinder Kumar, the then Naib Tehsildar, Ropar, did not state in their deposition that the man who came in the office of Sub Registrar on 28.5.1996 for execution of registration of sale deed was able to walk with the help of crutches, rather witnesses deposed that his health was fine and he was hale and hearty. The learned trial Court further observed that there was evidence on record showing that Gurdial Singh ex-Sarpanch of the village had gone to get a sale deed executed in favour of Sahibjada Ajit Singh Academy, and attested copy of the sale deed showed that sale deed was registered in between 4.00 pm to 5.00 pm on 28.5.1996. Thus, both the sale deeds were said to have been executed on the same day and registered between the same time i.e. 4.00 pm to 5.00 pm. The learned trial Court, thus, held that if Tarlok Singh had himself come to the office of Sub Registrar for registration of sale deed in between 4.00 pm to 5.00 pm then non-presence of Tarlok Singh in the office of Sub Registrar raised suspicion. Rather, DW-4 categorically stated that Tarlok Singh had never come to the office of Sub Registrar for getting the sale deed executed. It is not disputed that Tarlok Singh died on the same day. The learned trial Court also held that in the sale deed the attesting witnesses R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -14- were not of the village. DW-14 Harinder Kumar while appearing as witness admitted that between 4.00 pm to 5.00 pm, Lambardar Mansha Singh of the village of Tarlok Singh remained present in his office on 28.5.1996. He further admitted that Tarlok Singh was not known to him personally. He further stated that Tarlok Singh, who came to him for registration of the sale deed, was walking normally. This statement was held to be contrary to the medical report. The learned trial Court held that evidence on record did not prove the payment of Rupees one lac said to have been paid in advance and furthermore no bank draft was found from the body of Tarlok Singh, though admittedly he was said to have been taken straightway to hospital from the office of Sub Registrar. The medical evidence further showed that Tarlok Singh while in civil hospital was in very serious condition. In addition thereto, the learned trial Court also observed that alleged signatures of Tarlok Singh on sale deed Ex. D-1 shows the signatures on page No. 1 to be with shivering hand and on pages No. 2 and 3 with slow hand. Whereas on the backside of page No. 1 on the endorsements, signatures appeared to be in free flowing hand. They did not tally with each other as also with signatures in the register of deed writer. They further did not resemble the signatures of Tarlok Singh on the bed head ticket, wherein he has given consent for operation. Thus, it was held that the signatures were forged. Thus, it was held that the sale deed was not genuine document and appellant/defendant No.1 was not bona purchaser. Issues No. 4, 6 and 7 were decided against appellant/defendant No. 1 and in favour of plaintiff/respondents and defendant No. 2. R.S.A. No. 2564 of 2007 (O&M) -15- Issue No. 9-A was decided against defendant No. 2 and in favour of plaintiff/respondents. The learned trial Court in view of the evidence, decided issues No. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 in favour of plaintiff/respondents and against the defendants. Similarly, issue No. 9 was also decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff/respondents. Consequently, the suit filed by Mohinder Singh and others succeeded, whereas suit filed by Inder Pal Singh failed. In appeal, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were affirmed. Mr. Munish Jolly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of evidence and, thus perverse?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Courts below failed to notice that the positive evidence was brought on record to show that Tarlok Singh was present to get the sale deed registered, as proved by the attesting witnesses and Sub Registrar, who identified the photograph of Tarlok Singh on the sale deed to prove the due execution