Regular Second Appeal No.1728 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1728 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 05, 2009 Gurdip Singh Dhillon ...........Appellant Versus Tejinder Singh Dhami and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.R.Rana, Advocate the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Gurdip Singh Dhillon has filed a suit for declaration that he is co-owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit property described in detail in the head note of the plaint and so also in jamabandi for the year 1998-99. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2005. Plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 26.11..2008. Hence, the present appeal. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment, reads as under:- “2. Taken from his plaint case of Gurdip Singh Dhillon is that Mohinder Kaur, widow of Chanchal Singh, his mother was co- owner to the extent of 1/5th share in the suit property described in Regular Second Appeal No.1728 of 2009(O&M) 2 detail in the head note of the plaint and so also in Jamabandi for the year 1998-99. Mrs. Mohinder Kaur departed from this world on 17.5.2000 leaving behind the plaintiff and Ranjit singh (defendant No.2) as her sons and defendants No.3 and 4 as daughters. After the death of Mrs. Mohinder Kaur defendant No.1 started proclaiming himself to be exclusive owner of entire of the suit property on the basis of sale deeds dated 28.4.1998 and 21.7.1998 purportedly executed by Mrs. Mohinder Kaur although no such sale deed was ever executed by her and sale deeds being relied upon by defendant No.1 are illegal, forged, fabircated etc. Ms. Mohinder kaur remained bed ridden for the last 3 years of her life following dislocation of her hip joint and was not in a position to move to go for execution of sale and was more than 85 years of age. There was no reason much less compelling to alienate her property to her grandson defendant No.1. Sale deeds, supra are, without consideration and in all probability thumb impression obtained from Ms.Mohinder Kaur on blank papers by defendant no.1 are being misused by defendant No.1 in connivance with deed writer and his farther, defendant No.2. The plaintiff is permanently settled abroad and his sons are getting suit property cultivated on his behalf and for all intents and purposes the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit property. Having come to know about sale deeds, above said, only a month ago when defendant No.1 applied for mutation being sanctioned in his favour. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to admit sale deeds to be illegal and on his refusal to do so instant suit was Regular Second Appeal No.1728 of 2009(O&M) 3 brought. 3. Controverting the case and claim of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 in his separately filed written statement has raised preliminary objections so as to accuse the plaintiff of coming to the Court with tainted hands with this suit which is not maintainable in the given form and has been filed without any locus standi and that also by an incompetent person. On merits, version of defendant No. 1 is that Ms. Mohinder Kaur has sold her share in the suit property to him while being in sound disposing mind and in fit physical state against receipt of consideration from him. She did appear before Joint Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. On these averments, dismissal of the suit has been asked for. 4. In their separately filed written statement defendants No. 2 and 3 have raised similar preliminary objections as have been raised by defendant no.1. To be precise defendants No.2 and 3 have echoed version of defendant No.1 on all counts. 5. Defendant No.4 Kewal Kaur has taken side of the plaintiff and has consented for suit being decreed. 6. Remaining of the defendants did not come present to contest the suit and were proceeded against ex-parte. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for. ? OPP ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as Regular Second Appeal No.1728 of 2009(O&M) 4 prayed for?OPP iii) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD v) Whether the suit of the plaitntiff is not maintainable in the the present form?OPD vi)Whether the present suit is not filed by the competent authority?OPD vii) Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, Mohinder Kaur was co-owner of the suit property to the extent of 1/5th share and she died on 17.12.2000. Plaintiff is son of Mohinder Kaur. The case of the plaintiff is that these sale deeds Exhibit D1 and Exhibit D2, alleged to have been executed by Mohinder Kaur, in favour of defendant No.1, were illegal, null and void. The sale deeds in question are registered documents. Defendants have examined the attesting witness Mohinder Singh DW1 of the sale deeds in question. DW2 Gurvinder Singh, deed writer corroborated the statement of DW1 with regard to the execution of the sale deeds. DW4 Gurbachan Kaur and DW5 Tiram Ram proved the registration of the sale deeds in the Office of Joint Sub Registrar Adampur. In these circumstances, the courts below had rightly held that the sale deeds were duly proved to have been executed by Mohinder Kaur in favour of defendant No.1. There is no force in the arguments raised by the learned Regular Second Appeal No.1728 of 2009(O&M) 5 counsel for the appellant that since the sale deeds were without any consideration and, hence, were liable to be set aside. The executant Mohinder Kaur had executed the sale deeds in the year 1998 and she had died in the year 2000. During her life time she did not challenge the sale deeds on any grounds available to her including want of consideration. It was for the executant to have challenged the sale deeds on the ground that no consideration had been paid to her. Mohinder Kaur, who was owner of the property in dispute, executed the sale deeds as she could dispose of her property in the manner she liked. In these circumstances, both the Courts below rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law warranting interference arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 05, 2009 arya