RSA No. 884 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 884 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.02.2011. Gurcharan Singh and another .......Appellants Vs. Kartar Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. I.S.Brar, Advocate for the respondents No. 1, 4 and 6. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and defendants No. 7 to 12 were owner in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 259/2 (1-1). The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that Thakra Singh, predecessor in interest of defendants No. 1 to 6, was owner in possession of the suit property. Thakra Singh sold the suit property vide sale deed dated 24.2.1959 to Ajit Singh, Jaswant Singh and Mehar Singh in equal shares. The vendees were handed over the possession of the suit land. However, the vendees did not bother to get the sale deed incorporated in the revenue record. Defendants No. 1 to 6, in their written statement, RSA No. 884 of 2008 (O&M) -2- averred that Thakra Singh was owner in possession of the suit property. After his death, mutation had been sanctioned in favour of Kartar Singh and Tara Singh sons of Thakra Singh and his widow Seeto. The answering defendants were in possession of the suit property as owners. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the alleged sale deed is forged and fabricated? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs did not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 6.6.2007, the trial court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs is that they were owners in possession of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 24.2.1959, executed by Thakra Singh in their favour. The RSA No. 884 of 2008 (O&M) -3- sale deed relied upon by plaintiffs is an unregistered document. The sale consideration in the present case was less than `. 100/-. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under:- “”54. Sale” defined- “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Sale how made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.” Hence, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, the sale could have been executed by delivery of possession of the property, where the value of the immovable property was RSA No. 884 of 2008 (O&M) -4- less than ` 100/-. Thus, the plaintiffs were further required to establish that they were in possession of the suit property. It is a common saying that men may tell lies but documents do not. As per the revenue record, available on the file, the plaintiffs were not depicted to be in possession of the suit property. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. However, the said presumption is rebuttable but the plaintiffs had failed to rebut the same. PW-2 Om Parkash, attesting witness to the sale in his cross examination deposed that he had not seen the suit property and did not know as to who was in possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs had thus failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit land after execution of sale deed in their favour. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2011 Gurpreet