R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Ram Kishan and others ......Appellants Versus Manohar Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Rajeev Dev Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Manohar Lal Khullar filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Pathankot vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.1999. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 30.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 2 “2. Plaintiffs Manohar Lal filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendants on the plea that originally Sarda Ram son of Jagan Nath, father of defendants No. 1 to 3 was owner of the plots shown as red in the site plan marked ABCD and CDEF. He sold the plot ABCD to the plaintiff and Smt.Sunita Devi on 14.6.1974 vide separate sale deed for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. Sarda Ram sold the plot shown as CEDF to the plaintiff on 14.6.1974 vide separate sale deed for a consideration of Rs.5,000/-. The possession of both the plots was given to the vendees at the time of sale and 30 feet wide rasta situated on the northern side was left by Sarda Ram a shown in letters MNOP in the site plan for the ingress and outgress of said plots. The plaintiff alleged that if the said passage is closed or narrowed down, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in use and enjoyment of the plots. The plaintiff further alleged the houses of defendants No.1 to 3 are situated on the Western side and they have narrowed down the rasta before the institution of the suit, to which the defendants have no right. Hence, this suit. 3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding the locus standi and maintainability. The answering defendants further took the preliminary objection that the sale deeds as pleaded by the plaintiff R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 3 in the plaint are bogus and fraudulent documents. These sale deeds are prepared by the plaintiff in collusion with other vendees and witnesses. The answering defendants are not bound by the sale and the sale deeds did not convey any title to the plaintiffs. The defendants are in peaceful, continuous, hostile and adverse possession of the suit property without interference from any person. The answering defendants further took the preliminary objections that the area claimed in the passage by the plaintiff has been acquired by the Improvement Trust, Pathankot. A notice under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was published on 10.2.1995, 17.2.1995 and 24.2.1995 and a declaration under Section 42 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act was issued/published on 16.1.1996 and the award was pronounced on 9.2.1998. The possession was taken vide daily diary dated 6.7.1998 qua the suit property bearing khasra No.1401/939 of village Anandpur, tehsil Pathankot. On merits, the answering defendants pleaded that Sarda Ram was owner in possession of the disputed plots. The defendants denied the execution of the sale deeds for the plots in favour of the plaintiff and Sunita Devi. They further denied that any R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 4 passage was left. The answering defendants further pleaded that Sarda Ram never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as he remained sick for a quite long time before his death on 21.8.1974. The defendants alleged that plaintiff who is an influential person violated the injunction order and entered into the portion of suit land belonging to the defendants and constructed a small room on the eastern side of the plot in dispute and had changed nature of the suit property in the month of August 1993. The defendants denied the other allegations made in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefof permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file this suit? OPP 4. Whether the defendants have become owners of the suit property by adverse possession as alleged? OPD 5. Relief. R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Vide order dated 10.12.1999 , the following additional issue was framed:- “4-A. Whether the suit land has been acquired by the Improvement Trust, Pathankot, if so, its effect? OPD After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their peaceful possession over the property in dispute. The question involved in this case is as to whether Sarda Ram had executed the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff and Sunita Devi. In order to prove the execution of the sale deeds in his favour, plaintiff examined PW-1 Govind Ram Kant to prove the signatures of Hari Parshad Shastri (deceased) on the sale deeds Ex.P-1 and Ex.P- 2. PW2 Ketan Dass Chopra proved the execution of the sale deeds Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 and also the endorsement made by the Sub Registrar. The said witness also deposed with regard to the passing of the consideration between the parties. PW-3 Ashwani Kumar identified the signatures of Mulakh Raj, his deceased father on the sale deeds Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2. PW-4 Dinesh Mahajan deposed that the sale deeds had been written by his father Faqir Chand. The notices issued to Sarda Ram were proved on record by PW-5 Parkash Chand, draftsman of Improvement Trust, Pathankot. He also proved the replies submitted by Sarda Ram to the said notices. R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 6 The fact that Sarda Ram had thumb marked the endorsement does not lead to the inference that the sale deed had not been executed by him as the learned counsel has failed to point out from the record that the thumb impressions on the endorsements of the sale deeds were not of Sarda Ram. The defendants, on the other hand, alleged that an agreement to sell dated 29.9.1969 had been executed by Sarda Ram in their favour. Basant Ram was the owner of the property. The case of the defendants was that, in fact, the agreement to sell had been executed by Sarda Ram in favour of the plaintiff and Raj Kumar-defendant. However, no sale deed was executed in terms of the said agreement. The sale deeds relied upon by Manohar Lal forged and fabricated documents. The sale deeds are dated 14.6.1974 executed by Sarda Ram in favour of Manohar Lal and Sunita Devi. The sale deeds were duly registered. The plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the sale deeds. Rather the defendants failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff with regard to the execution of the sale deeds in dispute. The mutations were also sanctioned on the basis of the sale deeds in the presence of Basant Ram. Basant Ram never challenged the sale deeds in question although it is alleged that he was owner of the suit land. Possession of the suit land was handed over to the vendees at the time of execution of the sale deeds. Learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment R.S.A.No. 4106 of 2009 (O&M) 7 has observed that as per the recital in the sale deed, 30 feet wide passage had been left by the vendor towards Northern side. As per the Local Commissioner, there was 30 feet wide passage on the Northern side of the plots. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 30, 2009 anita