Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.10.2008 Dilbag Singh and Others …Appellants Versus Malook Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by Dilbag Singh, Lakhwinder Singh sons of Jarnail Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Gurvail Singh sons of Kundan Singh, Manju widow of Ajit Singh and Shabo alias Sarabjeet Kaur daughter of Ajit Singh. The respondents being plaintiffs had instituted the suit for declaration against the appellants-defendants. It was averred that defendant No.1 Ajit Sigh was owner in possession of 59 kanals 6 marlas of land detailed and described in the head note of the suit. He sold the suit land to plaintiff vide two registered sale deeds dated 12.3.1999 and 17.5.1999. On 12.3.1999, sale deed was executed qua Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 2 land measuring 32 kanals for consideration of Rs.4,80,000/-. On 17.5.1999 second sale deed was executed and 27 kanals 6 marlas of land was sold for consideration of Rs.4,90,000/-. It is stated that land was sold by defendant No.1 after receiving the entire sale consideration. It was stated that at the time of execution of the sale deed, possession was also delivered and after execution of the sale deeds, no claim, right, title or interest was left in defendant No.1 over the suit land. It was stated that defendants No.2 to 6 had claimed that they had become owners of the suit land as defendant No.1 had sold the same to them. It was stated that defendants No.2 to 6 were wrongly asserting their possession. It was stated that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 is illegal, null and void and no right, title or interest over the suit land has accrued in favour of defendants No.2 to 6. It was further stated that defendants No.1 to 6 have joined hands together and they have threatened to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Notice of the suit was issued. Defendants No.1 to 5 appeared. Defendants No.6 and 7 have been proceeded against ex-parte. Defendant No.1 filed written statement. Preliminary objection was raised that the suit is not maintainable; plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession of any part of the suit land and they are estopped by their own act and conduct to file the suit; No property was sold to any plaintiff by defendant No.1 rather plaintiffs in connivance with Nirvail Singh Lambardar, Puran Singh, Achhar Singh Deed Writer and Manjit Singh Baath, Advocate, had prepared a forged and fabricated sale deed. Defendant No.1 had not appended his thumb impressions on the sale Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 3 deeds and neither he had sold any property to the plaintiffs nor he received any consideration. It was further averred that complaint under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B IPC was filed against the plaintiffs and their associates and a criminal case bearing FIR No. 171 of 1999 has been registered. Defendant No.1 had sold the property to defendants No.2 to 6 on 19.8.1999 and 23.8.1999 and possession was also delivered by defendant No.1 to defendants No.2 to 5. Defendant No.2 to 5 had filed separate written statement. They stated that they had purchased the property of defendant No.1 vide two sale deeds dated 19.8.1999 and 23.8.1999, respectively. They denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. After the pleadings, following issues were framed by learned lower Court:- 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. In case, issue No.2 is proved, whether plaintiffs are entitled to alternative relief of possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deeds dated 12.3.1999 and 17.5.1999? OPP 4. Whether the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiffs on 12.3.1999 and 17.5.1999 are forged and fabricated documents? OPD 5. Whether the defendants are entitled to relief of Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 4 counter-claim as prayed for? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 8. Whether plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration? OPP 9. Relief. Thereafter, defendants absented themselves and were proceeded against ex-parte. In ex-parte evidence, PW.1 Balwinder Singh, Registration Clerk, PW.2 M.S. Baath, Advocate, PW.3 Malook Singh, plaintiff No.1, PW.4 Piara Singh, and PW.5 Tarsem Singh, plaintiff No.2 appeared before the Court. They tendered various documents also. Suit of the plaintiffs was decreed; Defendants were restrained; Injunction was issued and decree was passed by learned trial Court to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit land. Aggrieved against the same, defendants had filed an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Amritsar, which was decided by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. During pendency of appeal, Ajit Singh, defendant No.1 to the suit died and before learned lower Appellate Court, his legal representatives were brought on record. Before the learned lower Appellate Court it was urged by the appellants that a fraud had been played upon them. Mukhtiar Singh, respondent/plaintiff No.3 had Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 5 suffered a statement in the Court of Collector, Amritsar, that he had no concern whatsoever with the suit property. This statement was made in appeal against sanction of mutation. Learned Appellate Court below held that written statement was filed by the appellants to the suit as defendants. After framing of issues, when the case was fixed for evidence, they abandoned the suit. Nobody appeared on their behalf and the suit was decreed ex-parte. Relying upon the testimony of the witnesses findings of learned trial Court were upheld. I have heard Sh. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate, appearing for the appellants-defendants. He filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to permit appellants to adduce additional affidavit and has stated that the order of Collector, Amritsar should be taken on record as Malook Singh, Tarsem Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, plaintiffs/respondents, had admitted the claim of the appellants before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Collector. Mr. Sandhir states that this had happened on 11.3.2002 and the suit had been decreed on 23.4.2002. I find no merit in this contention of Mr. Sandhir. Suit was proceeded ex-parte on 20.4.2001 and from 20.4.2001 to 11.3.2002, it was incumbent upon the appellants to appear before the Court and acquaint regarding the alleged admission of the plaintiffs. A finding of fact has been recorded by learned lower Appellate Court. Without any basis having been laid, I can extend no credence to the submissions made before me by learned counsel for the appellants. From the acts and conduct of the appellants, there is nothing on the record for them to urge that any substantial question of law is Regular Second Appeal No. 1757 of 2008 6 made out. Facts appreciated by the Courts below require no re-appraisal. Hence, there is no merit and the present appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 20, 2008 “DK”