R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 Date of decision: 21.8.2009 Khazan Singh ......Appellant Versus Gurcharan Singh Manawa and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Khazan Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was exclusive owner of the property in dispute. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2001. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 20.5.2004. Hence, the present appeal. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 1 to 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 2 “ The facts as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff is the exclusive and rightful owner of the property house bearing Pvt. No.15, Khasra nos. 6219/5224, situated at Sultanwind Sub Urban Abadi, Dashmesh Nagar, Tar Taran Road, Amritsar, which he had purchased from its previous owner namely Ajit Singh, vide registered sale deed duly executed in his favour on 19.6.1991. The mutation of the said property has also been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. They are wrongly claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit property and are threatening to cause damage and destruction to the suit property and also threatening to further alienate the same on the basis of forged and fabricated sale deed dated 25.1.1995. Hence, this suit. 2. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who appeared and filed the written statements taking preliminary objections that the present suit is not maintainable; the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC; the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties; the plaintiff has suppressed the true facts from the Court; the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and the suit is not R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 3 properly valued for the purpose of court fees. On merits, it is replied that the plaintiff is not exclusive owner of the suit property and the site plan filed by the plaintiff is not correct. It is replied that the defendants and Smt.Parkash Kaur wife of defendant No.1 are the bona fide purchasers of the property for valuable consideration and without notice and are in its exclusive possession as owners thereof. Parkash Kaur wife of Rachhpal Singh was the true owner/purchaser of this house from Smt.Gurwinder Kaur wife of Ajit Singh vide regd.sale deed dated 7.1.1991 for Rs.30,000/- and she sold this house to defendant No.1 and his wife defendant No.2 vide regd.sale deed dated 15.1.1995 and delivered its possession to them and since then the defendants are in exclusive possession of the house as owners and a sum of Rs.3002/- was paid by them on account of balance amount of electricity bill charges on 23.1.1995. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit property. Rest of the averments made in the plaint are denied. It is further replied that Gurwinder Kaur wife of Ajit Singh was declared as owner of the said house by the court of S.Dhian Singh, the then Sub Judge, Amritsar. The said sale deed by Ajit Singh is neither a genuine document nor legal document. It is further replied that the plaintiff never R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 4 remained in possession of the suit property and the mutation was however, got sanctioned in connivance with the revenue authorities. The possession is with the defendant No.1 and his wife defendant No.2 right from the date of the sale deed in their favour. Rest of the averments made in the plaintiff are denied and as such the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit, with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is exclusive owner of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC? OPD 4. Whether the possession of the property in dispute was forcibly snatched by the defendants on 24.3.1995? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the house in dispute? OPP 6. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 5 The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the property in dispute from Ajit Singh on 19.6.1991 vide sale deed Ex.P- 1. Mutation had already been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff by the revenue authorities. The suit property remained in possession of the plaintiff but thereafter, defendants forcibly took its possession. The suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction against defendant Gurcharan Singh Manawa was got dismissed as withdrawn as it had become infructuous. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, is that the property in dispute was owned by defendant No.2 and they were in possession of the suit property as owners. They had purchased the same from Parkash Kaur, wife of Rashpal Singh vide sale deed Ex.D-3. Parkash Kaur had purchased the suit property from Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh vide sale deed Ex.D-2. Sale deed Ex.D-4 alleged to have been executed by Gurwinder Kaur, daughter of Joginder Singh in favour of Ajit Singh was a forged and fabricated document. Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Joginder Singh had no right to sell the property. In a suit filed by Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Sohan Singh, the suit property was declared to be owned by her vide judgment and decree Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2. Parkash Kaur had handed over the possession to the defendants at the time of execution of the sale deed. Defendants also examined DW-1 Meharban Singh, who deposed that Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Sohan R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 6 Singh was his real sister and was owner of plot No.15, Dashmesh Nagar, Amritsar. A dispute arose between his sister and Harbhajan Kaur regarding the suit property and the same was decided in favour of Gurwinder Kaur, who got possession of the suit property in pursuance of the said decree and mutation was sanctioned in her favour. Gurwinder Kaur sold the property to Parkash Kaur, who further sold the same to the defendants. Both the sides led oral evidence to prove execution of the sale deeds in their favour. Thus the controversy involved in this case is as to whether Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Joginder Singh was owner of the suit property or Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Sohan Singh was owner of the suit property. From the judgment and decree Ex. DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2, it is evident that the suit property was owned by Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Sohan Singh . The defendants have purchased the suit property from Parkash Kaur, who in turn had purchased the same from Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Sohan Singh . The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased the suit property from Ajit Singh vide sale deed Ex.P-1, who in turn had purchased the same from Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh vide sale deed Mark 'X'. A perusal of the original sale deed now placed on record reveals that Gurwinder Kaur seller has been described as wife of Ajit Singh on the last page. The R.S.A.No. 4641 of 2004 7 father's name of Gurwinder Kaur is, however, not mentioned. A perusal of Ex.D-4, certified copy of the sale deed dated 8.6.1982, reveals that the seller was Gurwinder Kaur, wife of Ajit Singh, daughter of Joginder Singh . However, in Mark 'X-1', photocopy of the said sale deed placed on record by the plaintiff, the father's name of the seller is missing. Although during the pendency of this appeal, the original sale deed has been placed on record but the same was not placed on record during trial and hence, the defendants were denied of the opportunity to establish that the father's name of the seller had been erased from the sale deed subsequently. In these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly held that the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Gurwinder Kaur in favour of Ajit Singh, vendor of the plaintiff, was not a legal and a valid document. Since Ajit Singh had no valid title or interest in the suit property, he could not pass on a better title to plaintiff Khazan Singh. Hence, both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 21, 2009 anita