R.S.A. No. 2212 of 2007 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2212 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 27.4.2009 Randhir Singh .......... Appellant Versus Satish Kumar ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 4545-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed, the order dated 24.3.2009 is recalled, and the case is restored to its original number. C.M. No. 6302-C of 2007 This is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condoning the delay of 268 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the C.M. is allowed, and the delay of 268 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 2212 of 2007 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.4.2006, passed by the learned Courts below, seeking R.S.A. No. 2212 of 2007 2 declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction to challenge sale deed executed by Smt. Bhateri widow of late Rati Ram, stands dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the sale deed executed by Smt. Bhateri, primarily on the ground, that sale was without consideration, and therefore did not vest any title with the defendant/ respondent. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the sale deed was executed by Smt. Bhateri, in favour of defendant / respondent, which stood duly proved. The plea that no sale consideration was passed, was rejected, in view of the stand taken by the vendor, that the money was received by her at home, prior to execution of the sale deed, thus, the learned Courts below held, that it could not be said to be without consideration. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate Court reads as under :- “14. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. The fact remains that the grand father was one Rati Ram, who died in the year 1962 and Bhateri died in the year 2001. After the death of Rati Ram the land was inherited by his father Randhir Singh and his grand-mother Bhateri and she got the sale deed on 26.11.1999 in his favour, while his father Randhir Singh has given the land to Pardip. In this way both the brothers are having equal land. Here by way of this suit, plaintiff – appellant has challenged the sale deeds, but from the evidence led by him no R.S.A. No. 2212 of 2007 3 where it can be said that the sale deeds were not executed, rather the attesting witnesses have clearly deposed that in their presence the sale deeds were executed. Lamberdar was also examined and Ved Pal was also examined. By merely saying that no sale consideration is passed is of no consequence, rather in the recital of the sale deeds, it is clearly mentioned that the sale consideration had already been taken at home. The appellant- plaintiff could not show any illegality in the sale deeds. By merely saying that Bhateri was hard of hearing and old age that does not itself convert the sale deeds to be null and void, because no documentary evidence is produced regarding his illness.” The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial questions of law, for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether the sale deed executed without consideration, was hit by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act ? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, is outcome of misreading of statement of attesting witnesses, who appeared as DW-1 and DW-2? In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that once the attesting witnesses had R.S.A. No. 2212 of 2007 4 admitted, that no sale consideration was passed in their presence, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, holding that sale was for consideration, is outcome of misreading of evidence. The admission by the attesting witnesses, who appeared as DW-1 and DW-2, proved the stand of plaintiff / appellant, that sale deed was without consideration, therefore, could not be sustained, in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The stand taken by the defendant vendor herself was, that money was received at home, and thereafter the sale deed was executed, keeping in view the relationship of the parties i.e. the vendor and vendee, it could not be said that the statement was doubtful or not capable of being believed. In view of the positive case set up by the vendor and vendee, read with the statements of attesting witnesses. DW-1 and DW-2, it can not be said that sale was without consideration to attract Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, as contended. The substantial questions of law raised, are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 27.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE