IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : May 04, 2009 Sandip Kang and others Appellants Versus Ashok Kumar and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) This judgment of mine shall dispose of two connected appeals RSA No. 1863 of 2009 titled as Sandeep Kang and others vs. Ashok Kumar and others and RSA No. 1864 of 2009 titled as Paramjit Kaur and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, both are disposed of together. The controversy revolves around the sale deed dated 21.7.1998 registered on 22.7.1998 executed by Major Harmohinder Singh (since deceased) in favour of Ashok Kumar (referred to as defendant) for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- paid through cheques. Major Harmohinder Singh by way of filing a suit for declaration challenged the said sale deed on the ground that the same was illegal, ultra-vires, false, forged and fabricated document. On the other hand Ashok Kumar while strengthening his title on the basis of the sale deed dated 21/22.7.98 preferred a suit for permanent injunction restraining Major Harmohinder Singh (since R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2009 (O&M) 2 deceased) from interfering in their possession over the demised premises. Both the parties have not disputed that the Bunglow No. 16 in question is situated in area of Jalandhar Cantonment, and is, thus, covered under the Old Grant Scheme popularly known as Governor General Regulations which were framed in the year 1836 and even the area of the property being 3.84 Acres. Appellants have also not disputed that Lala Dass was the original legatee from whom this property came in the hands of his son Jugal Kishore and he sold his ½ share to Major Harmohinder Singh deceased and ½ share to Shivinder Kaur mother of Major Harmohinder Singh. On the death of Shivinder Kaur he had received her ½ share and became full owner of the entire Bunglow. The appellants have made blatant denial saying that Major Harmohinder Singh never appeared in the office of sub Registrar to execute the sale deed or get it registered and the sale deed is the result of fraud. Both the courts below dismissed the suit filed by Major Harmohinder Singh (deceased) now represented by the appellants and decreed the suit of Ashok Kumar etc. respondents. The allegations of fraud and forgery are very easy to level but difficult to establish. The executant of the sale deed i.e. Major Harmohinder Singh was not an ordinary person but an Army Officer of the rank of Major, he knew his welfare, good or bad and it was not a simple transaction on a plain paper but a document on a stamped paper purchased by Major Harmohinder Singh and registered with the office of Sub Registrar, Jalandhar. Consideration involved in the sale deed was paid vide four different cheques which are as under :- R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Sr. No. Cheque No. Date Amount 1. 0847370 24.02.1998 Rs. 1,00,000/- 2 0847372 18.03.1998 Rs. 50,000/- 3. 0679040 22.05.1998 Rs. 1,50,000/- 4. 0679086 21.07.1998 Rs. 1,50,000/- The reference of these cheques find mentioned in the sale deed executed on 21.7.1998 and registered on 22.7.1998. The stamps were purchased by Major Harmohinder Singh which is clear from the endorsement as well as signatures of Major Harmohinder Singh under the endorsement. Major Harmohinder Singh not only signed the document but also thumb marked the same and it also bears his photograph alongwith photograph of vendee. The factum with regard to transfer of possession is also recorded in the sale deed. The plea that Major Harmohinder Singh had not signed any sale deed and the same is forged document does not find established from any source. Sale deed itself falsifies their contentions, the sale deed reveals that it was presented before the Registrar for registration. The Sandip Kang, appellant has given vague answers and has refused to identify the signatures of his father whereas Ashok Kumar appeared as DW5 and has proved all the facts including the factum of transfer of possession to him. The factum of possession also stands established from report of Ashok Kumar Sonik, Local Commissioner which reads as under:- “In the above noted case, I was appointed as a Local Commissioner with the direction of this Hon'ble High Court to visit the spot and give report regarding the existing factual position at the sport. Accordingly I visited R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2009 (O&M) 4 the spot on 23.8.98 at about 10.00 A.M. At the time of my inspection Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, counsel for the plaintiff accompanied by plaintiff and other native persons who has signed the presence sheet attached with my report, were present at the time of my inspection. I also prepared the rough site plan of the property in dispute which is attached herewith. The property was identified to me by the plaintiff which was bearing Bunglow No. 16, The Mall, Jalandhar Cantt., and bounded as under:- East : The Mall West : Haqiqat Road North : Govt. accommodation South : Road leading to Jalandhar City The main gate of the property which is on the southern side was opened by the plaintiff with the keys. Then we went in side the property and the doors of the building were opened by the plaintiff with the keys. There was also standing crops on the northern side of the building and one nursery of flowers, plants etc. was on the western side. With these remarks I submit my report accordingly. Sd/- (Ashok Kumar Sonik) Advocate Local Commissioner” R.S.A. No. 1863 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Ashok Kumar Sonik was appointed as Local Commissioner in the suit for permanent injunction filed by Ashok Kumar and the Local Commissioner had found that the plaintiff Ashok Kumar was in possession at the spot on 24.8.1998 i.e. after the execution and registration of sale deed. Thus no iota of doubt remains in my mind that the plaintiff Ashok Kumar now respondent is in possession of the suit property. The report made by the Local Commissioner finds corroboration from the testimony of Sandeep Kang PW 3 who also admits possession of Ashok Kumar on some portion of the house. After receiving sale consideration and execution of the sale deed, Major Harmohinder Singh appears to have changed his mind and tried to show his muscle power by filing a suit for declaration and also got filed a suit for resumption of the property. After the sale deed has been executed, he was not left with right in the property, therefore, he got filed a suit from Union of India in order to harass Ashok Kumar etc. respondents. Both the courts below have consistently observed that the sale deed was quite genuine and the respondents are not in possession of Bunglow No. 16 i.e. the demised premises. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in the appeals. No grounds to interference. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 04.05.2009 JUDGE reena