R.S.A No. 2853 of 1986 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2853 of 1986 Date of decision : November 06, 2008 Baghail Singh (dead) through his L.Rs ...... Appellant. through Mr.S.K.Chopra, Advocate v. Gurmej Singh & others ...... Respondents through Mr.H.S.Grewal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.7.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar reversing the judgment and decree, dated 3.6.1985 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Patti and consequently decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 3 and 6 to 8. The plaintiffs filed a suit that Baghail Singh, appellant/defendant No.1(since deceased now represented through his L.Rs) had sold 53 kansls 13.1/2 marla of land vide sale deed dated 7.2.1955 and that subsequently by sale deed dated 1.4.1959, plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No.4 to 6 had purchased 8 kanals 17 marla of land from the vendees of the appellant. They consequently prayed R.S.A No. 2853 of 1986 ::2:: for declaration and injunction with respect to the said land. The plea of the appellant was that he had never executed the sale deed dated 7.2.1955 and that the plaintiffs never came into possession of the land in dispute. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, learned lower appellate Court found as a fact that the appellant had infact executed the sale deed dated 7.2.1955 and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law :- “ Whether the sale deed Ex.P1 is a sham transaction and is void for lack of valid consideration and has not been acted upon ? Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are so palpably perverse that they cannot be held to have arisen from the material on the record. For this purpose, the learned counsel referred me exhaustively to both the documentary and oral testimony to substantiate his above plea. He has relied upon R.V.E Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4548 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “.... Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes :-(i) an objection that the document which is sought to be R.S.A No. 2853 of 1986 ::3:: proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as `an exhibit', an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision.” He has further urged that the findings of the learned lower appellate Court that the sale deed dated 7.2.1955 was 30 years old on the date of leading evidence was wrong and, thus, the learned lower appellate Court could not raise a presumption in favour thereof. For this proposition, he has relied upon Ladha Singh and others vs Mt. Hukam Devi and another, AIR 1924 Lahore 145 and Surendra Krishna Roy and another vs Mirza Mohammad Syed Ali Mutawali and others, AIR 1936 Privy Council 15. Though there is no quarrel with this proposition of law, however, I find that the learned lower appellate Court drew a presumption against the appellant since he never appeared in the witness box, and further relied on the revenue record whereby the sale deed dated 7.2.1955 was entered in the jamabandi for the year 1958-59. Similarly, the mutation of the sale deed dated 1.4.1959 was incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1965-66. In view thereof the stray entry of redemption of some alleged mutation got recorded by the appellant in the jamabandi for the year 1980 would not rebut the earlier presumptions, moreso, since in the written statement the plea of the defendants was of complete denial of any transaction at all. R.S.A No. 2853 of 1986 ::4:: In the circumstances, I hold that the findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court are not so palpably perverse that it can be held that they do not arise from the material on record of the Courts below. The substantial question of law, proposed by counsel for the appellant, is a pure question of fact. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 06, 2008. JUDGE `kk'