R.S.A.No.1286 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1286 of 2008 Date of Decision : 30.7.2009 Parminder Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Udey Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. A.K.Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The legal heirs of defendant No.1 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby sale effected by Amrik Singh-defendant No.1 on 26.6.1998 in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5 was found to be illegal or null & void. One Udey Singh-defendant No.2, father of Amrik Singh was the owner of the suit property. He suffered a decree in favour of Amrik Singh on 24.8.1995. The said decree was challenged by his other two sons in the present suit. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 Amrik Singh executed a sale deed of the property in dispute in favour of Udey Singh on 15.6.1998. However, few days later on 26.6.1998, defendant No.1 again executed a sale deed in respect of same property in R.S.A.No.1286 of 2008 2 favour of his sons i.e. defendant Nos.4 and 5. On such sale being effect, an additional issue 2(A) was framed, which reads as under : “Whether the sale deed No.1110 dated 15.6.1998 and 1281 dated 26.6.1998 are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiffs, as alleged? OPP” The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit property is not the ancestral land and is self-acquired property of Udey Singh- defendant No.2. Therefore, the plaintiff has no pre-existing rights in the suit property. But since the decree is registered, therefore, the suit was dismissed and the decree and sale deeds were found to be legal and valid. In appeal, the learned first Appellate Court found that the decree dated 24.8.1995 and sale deed dated 15.6.1998 executed by Amrik Singh in favour of Udey Singh are valid, but it was held that the sale effected by Amrik Singh in favour of his sons on 26.6.1998 is illegal, null & void and not binding upon the parties as Amrik Singh was not the owner of suit land having executed registered sale deed in favour of his father. It is how the second appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of defendant No.1. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that defendant No.2 has filed an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, though the stand of the said defendant in the written statement was similar to that of defendant No.1 i.e. to support the decree dated 24.8.1995. It is also argued that Udey Singh-defendant No.2 has executed an affidavit to the effect that Amrik Singh can execute sale deed in favour of his sons and it was in pursuance of said affidavit, the sale R.S.A.No.1286 of 2008 3 was effected by defendant No.1 in favour of his sons i.e. defendant Nos.4 and 5. . I do not find any merit in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants. Udey Singh has not challenged the decree dated 24.8.1995 in appeal. In fact the said decree was accepted to be correct and therefore, he derived his title on the basis of subsequent sale deed dated 15.6.1998. Once Amrik Singh has executed the sale deed in favour of his father on 15.6.1998, Amrik Singh ceases to have any interest in the suit property in respect of which he could execute another sale deed in favour of his sons. The affidavit, if any of Udey Singh, is ineffective and will not confer any right with Amrik Singh to execute the sale deed in favour of any person. Since by the aforesaid affidavit, Udey Singh was conferring rights of immoveable property of value of more than Rs.100/-, the same could be effected only by registered instrument. In the absence of any registered instrutment in favour of Amrik Singh or in favour of defendant Nos.4 and 5, Amrik Singh could not execute sale deed in favour of his sons on 26.6.1998. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 30.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE