-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2008 (O&M) . IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 10, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2008 (O&M) . Satnam Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Baggu Ram and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Ms. Rupinder Thind, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deed No.181 dated 22.5.1992 showing the sale of the land in dispute measuring 16 -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2008 (O&M) . Kanals by the plaintiff and defendant No.3 jointly in equal shares in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 is null and void and liable to be cancelled and for permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 3 from alienating or transferring the said land has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in toto whereas, on appeal, preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the lower appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.2008, set aside the findings of the trial Court under issues Nos. 1 and 2 i.e (1) whether the plaintiff and defendant No.3 had sold the suit land to the defendants Nos.1 and 2 ?OPD and (2) whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that the sale deed be set aside? OPD, but affirmed the finding of the trial Court under issue No.6 i.e whether the suit is within limitation?OPP and dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. Issues Nos. 3 to 5 regarding locus standi of the plaintiff to file the suit, jurisdiction of Civil Court and competency of the plaintiff to file the suit were not pressed by the defendants before the Courts below and were, accordingly, decided against them. I have heard Ms. Rupinder Thind, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.4 and have perused the impugned judgments. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2008 (O&M) . Both Satnam Singh (plaintiff) and Bhagwan Singh (defendant No.3) are real brothers. The claim of the plaintiff- appellant was that the sale deed No.181 dated 22.5.1992 vide which he (plaintiff) along with Bhagwan Singh (defendant No.3) had been shown to have sold land measuring 16 Kanals, in equal shares, being 320/1098 share of land measuring 54 Kanals 18 Marlas to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was wrong, illegal, based on fraud and was not binding on his (plaintiff's) rights and that, in fact, the plaintiff had sold his land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas and Bhagwan Singh (defendant No.3) had sold 13 Kanals 14 Marlas. However, this claim of the plaintiff was denied by the defendants. Defendant No.4 is the Bank from whom defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had taken loan for purchasing the land in dispute from the plaintiff and defendant No.3. The plaintiff-appellant based his claim on the fact that he had received the amount of Rs.14218/- vide cheque No.292578 dated 22.5.1992 from the Bank-defendant No.4 whereas defendant No.3 had received Rs.85782/- vide cheque No.292577 dated 22.5.1992, which, as per the plaintiff-appellant, goes to show that he (plaintiff) had sold his land measuring 2 Kanals 6 Marlas only whereas defendant No.3 had sold land measuring 13 Kanals 14 Marlas. According to the plaintiff- appellant, had it not been so, he and defendant No.3 would have received Rs.50,000/- each, the total land having been sold for Rs.1,00,000/-. It is well known that exact sale consideration is never mentioned in the sale deeds for one reason or the other -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2008 (O&M) . and the sale consideration is always much higher than shown in the sale deeds. In the sale deed in question, both the plaintiff and defendant No.3 have been shown to have sold land measuring 16 Kanals i.e 8 Kanals each. The sale deed bears the signatures of the plaintiff as well. It is admitted case of the plaintiff-appellant that possession of the land subject matter of sale deed in question had been delivered to the vende-deendants Nos. 1 and 2 at the spot. If it is so, the plaintiff-appellant was knowing from the very beginning that he had sold 8 Kanals of land to the vendee defendants Nos.1 and 2 i.e half of the total land of 16 Kanals, the other 8 Kanals having been sold by defendant No.3 from his share, the possession of which had been delivered to them (vendee defendants). The claim of the plaintiff- appellant that there was mistake on the part of the revenue officials in sanctioning mutation No.4084 dated 14.1.1994 in which 16 Kanals of land was shown to have been transerred by the plaintiff and defendant No.3, under the circumstances, is not at all acceptable. It appears that the plasintiff-appellant had received the major sale consideration in cash at the time of executing the sale deed in favour of defendants Nos.1 and 2 besides accepting an amount of Rs.14218/- vide cheque No.292578 dated 22.5.1992 from the Bank-defendant No.4, otherwise he would not have kept mum for so many years because the amount mentioned in the sale deeds by the vendors and vendees is always less than the actual sale consideration of the transactions. Thus, approaching the Court by way of filing the -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 2008 (O&M) . instant suit on 2.1.1998 although possession of the suit land had been delivered to the vendee defendnts Nos. 1 and 2 on 22.5.1992 by the plaintiff-appellant and defendant No.3 when the sale deed was executed in their favour by them (plaintiff and defendant No.3) leads to the only conclusion that the plaintiff had received the entire sale consideration on 22.5.1992. In this view of the matter, the delay in filing the instant suit is fatal to the cause of the plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 10, 2011. JUDGE ak