R.S.A. No.689 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.689 of 2009 Date of Decision: 6.10.2009 Boota Singh .....Appellant Vs. Naib Singh and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J CM No.1929-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 34 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM No.1930-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. RSANo.689 of 2009 The appellant challenges judgements and decrees dated 29.4.2004 and 8.8.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa and the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, decreeing the suit filed by respondent no.1 and dismissing his appeal. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 filed a suit for declaration that the decree dated 13.12.1996, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, in a suit titled as Boota Singh Vs. Tara Singh is null and void and not binding upon his rights. One Darshan Singh acquired a plot/nohra measuring 300 Sq. Yds. by way of a decree dated 2.6.1984 but as Tara R.S.A. No.689 of 2009 2 Singh and his wife were in possession, he filed a suit for possession, which was decreed in favour of Darshan Singh. The appeal filed by Tara Singh was dismissed by the first appellate court on 2.9.1993 and by the High Court on 7.2.1994. In execution proceedings filed by Darshan Singh, objections were filed by Gurbej Singh, who claimed to be owner of the property at the behest of Kartar Singh son of Tara Singh. The objections were dismissed but Kartar Singh got another suit filed by Gurbej Singh, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, Kartar Singh forged an agreement to purchase the plot from Gurbej Singh and filed a suit for permanent injunction but no interim injunction was granted. The plaintiff-respondent no.1 alleges that he has purchased the property from Darshan Singh vide sale deed dated 4.12.1996 and he is, therefore, owner in possession. Tara Singh, whose plea of ownership has already been rejected has suffered a collusive decree dated 13.12.1996 in favour of his son Boota Singh. It was, therefore, prayed that as the impugned decree is null and void, the suit be decreed and the appellant be restrained from interfering in respondent no.1's possession. In response, the appellant pleaded that Darshan Singh has no right, title or interest in the suit land and that the property acquired by him by decree dated 13.12.1996 is different from the property owned by Darshan Singh as they bear different municipal numbers. Tara Singh was the lawful owner of the suit property and as the appellant is in actual physical possession, the suit should be dismissed. After framing issues and calling upon parties to lead evidence, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the property purchased by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 from Darshan Singh is the same property which R.S.A. No.689 of 2009 3 is subject matter of the collusive decree from which the appellant derives title. It was further held that the appellant has failed to prove that the property subject matter of the sale deed and the decree is different. It was also held that the decree dated 13.12.1996 being collusive does not pass valid title to the appellant for want of registration. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree dated 29.4.2004, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 8.8.2008, the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below have committed an error by holding that the property subject matter of the sale deed dated 4.12.1996 and the decree dated 13.12.1996 is the same. The properties bear different municipal numbers namely; 20/594 owned by the appellant and 6/337/A owned by respondent no.1. The courts below have ignored the evidence on record and have, therefore, committed an error in recording that the old municipal number 6/337/A was changed to 20/594. It is further submitted that Ex.D-5 contains an admission, on the part of respondent no.1 that the two houses bear different numbers. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgements and decrees, considered the so called questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant but express my inability to hold that the impugned judgements raise any substantial question of law. The courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that Naib Singh, respondent no.1 purchased the suit land from Darshan Singh. It has been specifically held that the appellant has failed to place on record any demarcation report or site plan to prove that the property purchased by respondent no.1 and that claimed by the appellant are different. It was R.S.A. No.689 of 2009 4 further held that as Tara Singh, the appellant's father was evicted from the property, in execution of a decree for possession passed in favour of Darshan Singh, the appellant cannot claim possession. It was also pointed out that the appellant has failed to produce any municipal record to establish, as alleged that the property purchased by Darshan Singh and the property transferred to him by Tara Singh are two separate properties with two different numbers. As regards the averments in Ex.D-5, the courts below have rejected the assertion that it contains an admission that the two properties bear different municipal numbers. I find no reason, whether in law or in fact to hold that the findings of fact recorded by the courts below are incorrect. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, Tara Singh, father of the appellant and Darshan Singh, the vendor of respondent no.1 went through a protracted litigation and eventually a decree for possession was passed in favour of Darshan Singh. Thereafter, objections were manipulated by the appellant, his brother and by Tara Singh. After Tara Singh was dispossessed, his son, Boota Singh the appellant, started a fresh round of litigation. The courts below have rightly held that the suit land belongs to respondent no.1 and the appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It would also be necessary to mention here that the collusive decree dated 13.12.1996 was suffered by Tara Singh after the suit was decreed in favour of Darshan Singh and after the appeal had been dismissed by the High Court on 7.2.1994. In view of what has been stated herein above, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. 6.10.2009 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE