In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2834 of 2003 ..... Date of decision:26.2.2008 Sanjay and another .....Appellants v. Ashok Kumar and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Devender Singh Nirban, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. ..... S.S. Saron, J. (Oral) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants Sanjay and Vikram Singh sons of Jai Parkash son of Hari Chand against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul whereby their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh has been dismissed. The plaintiffs-appellants, who are the grand-sons of Hari Chand (defendant No.2) filed a suit inter alia alleging that their grand-father Hari Chand (defendant No.2) was a man of bad habits and remained under the influence of liquor. Therefore, Naresh Kumar (defendant No.1 since deceased and now represented by his LRs) had got executed sale deed dated 7.8.1992 in his favour with regard to land measuring 8 Kanals comprised in Khewat No.109, Khatauni No.130, Rectangle No.84 Khasra No.22 Min. (6- 2) and Rectangle No.88, Khasra No.21 (1-18). The sale deed dated R.S.A. No.2834/2003 [2] 7.8.1992, it is contended, does not bind the plaintiffs Sanjay and Vikram Singh as Hari Chand (defendant No.2) had suffered a collusive decree dated 25.1.1992 in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants. Naresh Kumar (defendant No.1) in his written statement took the stand that the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1992 are illegal, null and void, fraudulent and not binding on his rights. In fact, Hari Chand (defendant No.2) was the owner in possession of the entire land and he had entered into an agreement to sell 8 Kanals of land to him for the sale consideration of Rs.90,000/- on 17.6.1991. At the time of the execution of the agreement on 17.6.1991 a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to Hari Chand (defendant No.2) as earnest money. The remaining sale consideration of Rs.40,000/- was paid at the time of execution of and registration of sale deed. Possession of the land was also handed over to defendant No.1 on the date of agreement. Since then he is continuing in possession. The plaintiffs did not file any replication. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether the sale deed No.927 dated 7.08.1992 is illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction, based on fraud and mis- representation as alleged in the plaint?. OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD. 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit by his own act and conduct? OPD. 5. Whether the defendant No.1 is bona fide purchaser of the suit R.S.A. No.2834/2003 [3] property with consideration? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous? OPD. 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed U/o 7 Rule 3 CPC? OPD. 8. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiffs have shown wrongly minor? If so, to what effect? OPD. 10. Whether the plaintiffs have not given their postal address in the suit. If so, to what effect? OPD. 11. Relief.” The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide its judgment and decree dated 4.9.2000. The appeal against the same has been dismissed on 8.2.2003 by the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul which is assailed by way of present regular second appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants has contended that the judgment and decree dated 25.1.1992 (Ex.P.4) was suffered by Hari Chand (defendant No.2) in favour of the plaintiffs- appellants and, therefore, the sale deed executed by Hari Chand (defendant No.2) on 7.8.1992 does not bind the plaintiffs. It is also contended that a perusal of the sale deed dated 7.8.1992 which is Ex.DW.2/A on record would show that a reference has been made to agreement dated 13.6.1991 whereas the agreement set-up by defendant No.1-Naresh Kumar is dated 17.6.1991 and is Ex.DW.3/A on record. It is also contended that the property which was sold by Hari Chand (defendant No.2) is the ancestral, R.S.A. No.2834/2003 [4] coparcenary and joint Hindu property of the plaintiffs and the alleged sale deed dated 7.8.1992 made by Hari Chand (defendant No.2) was/is without legal necessity and, therefore, in any case, does not bind the plaintiffs- appellants. In response, learned counsel for the LRs of Naresh Kumar (defendant No.1) has contended that the sale deed dated 7.8.1992 executed by Hari Chand (defendant No.2) in favour of Naresh Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-respondents, was legal and valid and for consideration. It is submitted that, in any case, defendant No.1 was the bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice express or implied of the rights of the plaintiffs as no mutation was got entered or sanctioned by the plaintiffs in the revenue records on the basis of the decree dated 25.1.1992. It is also contended that the lower appellate Court has held that there was collusion between the plaintiffs and Hari Chand (defendant No.2), therefore, it was held that the plaintiffs cannot derive any benefit of their own collusion with Hari Chand (defendant No.2) for depriving defendant No.1 of his legal rights in the land purchased by him in pursuance of the valid sale deed. Besides, it is contended that no questions of law are involved in the present case which would require consideration of this Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the record of the Courts below with the assistance of the learned counsel. It may be noticed that the ancestral, coparcenary and joint Hindu family nature of the property has not been held to be proved. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the property is not proved to be ancestral, R.S.A. No.2834/2003 [5] coparcenary or joint Hindu family property of the parties i.e. plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants though, by making a reference to the mutation No.1178 (Ex.P.2) on record and also by making a reference to the Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 (Ex.P.3) on record, did try to connect the suit land to be ancestral, however, he has failed to connect the land measuring 8 Kanals comprised in Rectangle No.84, Khasra No.22/Min. (6-2), Rectangle No.88, Khasra 21 (1-18) with the land mentioned in (Ex.P.2). The Jamabandi for the year 1964-65 merely records Hari Chand as the owner of the various lands including the aforesaid land and he is recorded as adopted son of Ranjeet Singh son of Nand Lal to the extent of ½ share and Mehar Chand son of Sukh Ram son of Nand Lal to be the owner of the remaining ½ share. Therefore, parentage of Hari Chand has been mentioned but the same does not show that the land has been inherited by Hari Chand (defendant No.2) from his ancestors so as to establish it as ancestral, coparcenary or joint Hindu family property. Admittedly, nothing has been brought on record to show that the decree dated 25.1.1992 said to have been suffered by Hari Chand in favour of his grand-sons Sanjay and Vikram Singh (plaintiffs-appellants) was got entered and sanctioned in the revenue records. Both the Courts below have held that defendant No.1 was bona fide purchaser for consideration. Issue No.5, which is to the effect whether defendant No.1 is bona fide purchaser of the suit property with consideration has been decided in favour of Naresh Kumar-defendant No.1. The fact that in the sale deed dated 7.8.1992, the agreement dated 13.6.1991 has been mentioned whereas the agreement dated 17.6.1991is said to have been entered into between Hari Chand R.S.A. No.2834/2003 [6] (defendant No.2) and Naresh Kumar (defendant No.1) is hardly of any significance and it appears to be merely a typographical mistake which does not confer any rights on the plaintiffs-appellants. Besides, this contention has been raised for the first time in regular second appeal and it is not such a defect which goes to the root of the case so as to vitiate the impugned judgment and decree. The findings and reasonings have been concurrently reached by at the Courts below. The defendant No.1 has purchased the suit property from Hari Chand (defendant No.2) in pursuance of registered sale deed dated 7.8.1992 which has been proved on record as Ex.DW2/A. There is nothing on record to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact reached at by the Courts below. Besides, no question of law is shown to be involved in the present appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed. February 26, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No