RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: December 09, 2009 R.S.A. No.4512 of 2009 (O&M) Smt. Ramwati Devi .........Appellant Versus Janki Lal and others ..........Respondents R.S.A. No.4513 of 2009 (O&M) Smt. Ramwati Devi .........Appellant Versus Shyam Singh Bhati and others ..........Respondents R.S.A. No.4527 of 2009 (O&M) Smt. Ramwati Devi .........Appellant Versus Janki Lal and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.C.L.Verma,Advocate for the appellants ** Sabina, J. This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeals No. 4512, 4513 and 4527 of 2009 as all the appeals have arisen out of the one judgment and decree and the controversy involved is the same in all the RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 2 appeals. Plaintiff-Ramwati Devi filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming that she was owner in possession of the residential plot in dispute. Plaintiffs-Janki Lal and Maya Devi filed a suit for permanent injunction that they are joint owners in joint possession of the suit land. Both the suits were consolidated and were disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.2007 by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palwal. The suit filed by Ramwati Devi was decreed and the sale deeds in question were set aside,whereas, the suit filed by Janki Lal and another was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, three appeals were filed by the parties and they were disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2009 by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad wherein it was held that Ramwati Devi had executed the sale deeds for consideration in favour of Janki Lal and Maya Devi. The suit filed by Ramwati Devi was dismissed,whereas, suit filed by Janki Lal and Maya Devi was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff-Ramawati . The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment reads as under:- “2. Smt.Ramwati Devi wife of Shri Bani Singh son of Shri Lekh Raj resident of house No.299/4, New Colony Palwal, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad, has pleaded that she is owner in possession of the residential plot bearing khasra No. 173/24 (8-0) to the extent of 28/320th share i.e. 14 marlas situated within the abadi deh of Palwal, Tehsil Pawal, District Faridabad, which she purchased from one Shri Dayal Chand son of Shri Baksha Ram son of Shri Gaila Ram resident of village Palwal, being the share RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 3 holder in the land to the extent of 28/160 share in consideration of Rs.36,000/-, although the sale deed was executed for consideration of Rs.90,000/-, but according to the share and Rakwa the amount was taken out as Rs.36,000/-. The possession of the land, so purchased, was handedover to the plaintiff just after the execution of the sale deed. Plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 played a fraud with the help of defendant No.3 upon the plaintiff and on that very date by executing of another sale deed as defendant no.3 obtained thumb impression on other stamp papers and in this manner prepared two sale deed, firstly in her favour and the other in favour of defendant Nos. 1 & 2 regarding this very land. The plaintiff has claimed that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants No. 1 & 2 in collusion of defendant No.3 are false, fictitious, bogus and sham documents and without consideration and without knowledge, notice and consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further pleaded that the defendant No.3 has used his proximity with her husband for executing the fraud as she is illiterate and a household lady and is not much aware about the legal formalities. She has pleaded that she has not received any consideration and actually on that day when she executed the sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 & 2, she was neither owner nor in possession in any capacity over the suit land and therefore defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit land. She has also sought the relief of perpetual injunction being in actual physical possession over the suit land. RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 4 3.The defendants Nos. 1 & 2 have appeared and filed written statement in which challenged the suit on the legal grounds i.e. plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit as plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have pleaded that the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from previous owner Dayal Chand son of Baksha Ram on 22.10.92 and got the sale deed registered on 23.10.1992 in a sale consideration of Rs.36,000/- and further alienated the suit property to the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 by receiving enhanced sale price of Rs.40,000/- and the possession was delivered to the answering defendants on 23.10.1992 and since then plaintiff had got no right, title in the suit property. It is further pleaded that plaintiff had purchased 28/160 share of the suit property for Rs.36,000/- and sold away 14/160 share for Rs.40,000/- and the actual physical possession was delivered to the purchasers at the spot. The answering defendants have pleaded that two registered sale deeds in favour of defendants Nos. 1 & 2 to the extent of 7/160 share each for consideration of Rs.20,000/- was executed on 23.10.1992 and she has further sold seven marlas of land for Rs.60,000/- vide registered sale deed 26.9.1997 to Nemwati wife of Dev Dutt resident of Palwal and had further sold seven marlas of land for consideration of Rs.45,000/- to Raghuraj and Somdutt sons of Daya Ram resident of Adarsh Colony, Palwal on 15.3.1995. The answering defendants have further specifically denied that any fraud has taken place and in fact stamp papers of RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 5 the registered sale deeds executed in their favour were purchased on 23.10.1992 and the plaintiff executed two registered sale dede in their favour on 23.10.92 after receiving a sale price of Rs.40,000/- before Sub Registrar, Palwal. 4.Defenant No.3 has filed a separate written statement in which has denied the contents of the plaint and pleaded that the defendants Nos. 1 &2 are owners in possession of the suit property and no fraud has been played upon the plaintiff 5.In another civil suit titled Janki Lal versus Smt.Ramwati Devi bearing civil suit. No.1028/2000/03 plaintiffs have pleaded that they are owner in joint possession to the extent of 14/160 share of the residential plot bearing khasra No.173/24(8-0) situated within the Abadi Deh of village Palwal and the plot was purchased vide two separate registered sale deeds dated 23.10.1992 executed by the defendant Smt.Ramwati Devi and also sought a relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from alienating 14/160 share of the plaintiffs qua the suit plot in any manner. In the written statement Smt.Ramwati Devi has pleaded that a fraud has been played upon her and in fact she has repeated the same facts in the written statement as pleaded by her in civil suit titled `Smt.Ramwati Devi versus Janki Lal'. 6.Since both the civil suits were pertaining to the same dispute i.e. the same suit property and in between the same parties therefore vide order 13.9.2006 the civil suit titled Janki Lal versus Smt.Ramwati Devi was consolidated in civil suit No.446/97/06 titled Smt.Ramwati Devi versus Janki Lal. RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 6 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the residential plot as mentioned in para no.1 of he plaint to the extent of 28/320th share,as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the sale deeds executed in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 are bogus, fraudulent, sham documents,as alleged?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for permanent injunction?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing suit?OPD 7.Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 8.Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?OPD 9.Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs, if so to what amount?OPD 10. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. The controversy involved in these appeal is very short. The case of the appellant is that she had not become owner of the property in dispute at the time of execution of sale deeds (Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2) alleged to have been executed by her in favour of the respondents. However, there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 7 for the appellant in this regard. Sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant by Dayal Chand on 22.10.1992. However, the same was got registered on 23.10.1992. Section 47 of the Registration Act,1908 reads as under:- "47.Time from which registered documents operates-A registered document shall operate from the time which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration." It has been held by the Apex Court in K.J.Nathan vs. S.V.Maruthi Rao and others AIR 1965 Supreme Court 430 wherein it has been held as under:- "If the mortgage by deposit of title deeds was effected on May 10,1947, or on July 5,1947, the legal position would be the same, as the mortgage deed in favour of the 3rd defendant was executed only on October 10,1947. Though Ex.A.19 was registered on June 22,1948, under S.47 of the Registration Act the agreement would take effect from July 5,1947". Thus, Ramwati Devi-appellant was having a transferable right on the date of execution and registration of the sale deeds (Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2) i.e. on 23.10.1992. Merely because the sale deed in favour of the appellant was registered after the registration of the sale deeds Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2, in the facts of the present case, does not lead to an inference that appellant had no transferable right when she executed the sale deeds Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 in favour of the respondents on 23.10.1992 as the sale deed Exhibit P3 in her favour was, in fact, executed on 22.10.1992. Though it (Exhibit P3) was registered on 23.10.1992, after registration of the sale deeds Exhibit P1 and P2. Appellant had failed to lead any evidence to the RSA NO. 4512 of 2009 (O&M) 8 effect that the sale deeds Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P2 were a result of fraud. The plea of the appellant that Shyam Singh was known to her husband and had taken her thumb impressions on the sale deed rather leads to an inference that the appellant has admitted her thumb impressions on the sale deeds. However, the plea taken by the appellant was not established that her thumb impressions on the sale deed were a result of fraud. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge December 09, 2009 arya