R.S.A. No.70 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No.70 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:- 10.11.2010 Haryana Urban Development Authority ... Appellant Versus Ranjit Singh Shastri ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. R.K.Rana, Advocate, for the respondent. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The appellant/defendant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2.2.2008 passed by District Judge Jind vide which he dismissed the appeal of the defendant preferred against the judgment and decree dated 6.9.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Jind, decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs directing the defendant to transfer the property in dispute in favour of defendant No.1 within one month of passing of the decree. The case of the plaintiffs is that property in dispute was previously owned and possessed by Ashok Kumar – plaintiff No.2, who executed release deed dated 14.9.2000 in favour of his father Ranjit Singh- plaintiff No.1. After fulfilling all the formalities, plaintiff No.1 deposited sum of `.5,000/- and applied to the defendant for the transfer of the property R.S.A. No.70 of 2009 (O&M) -2- in dispute in his name. His request was declined on the ground that the property can be transferred only on the basis of the sale deed. The release deed is conveyance deed in the eyes of law and the property should have been legally transferred by the defendant in favour of plaintiff No.1. The claim of the plaintiffs was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. It has been pleaded therein that in order to avoid the stamp duty release deed was executed. The release deed could have been executed only in respect of the ancestral property. This release deed by plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1, in respect of his self acquired property, in which the later plaintiff had no pre-existing right, could not have been executed. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action/locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit?OPD 5. Whether suit is bad for want of requisite advaloram court fees?OPD. 6. Relief. After going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel on behalf of the parties, the learned trial Court decided all the issues in favour R.S.A. No.70 of 2009 (O&M) -3- of the plaintiff and resultantly decreed the suit. The first appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed, as afore-said. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/defendant that the release deed on the basis of which plaintiff No.1 applied for the transfer of the property in his name is not a legal document as the property so released in favour of that plaintiff was not ancestral property. The property could have been transferred in the name of plaintiff No.1 only if regular sale deed had been executed by plaintiff No.2, who was recorded to be the owner of this property in records. According to him the following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal:- " whether the title in the suit property could have been transferred in favour of plaintiff No.1 by way of release deed?" Concurrent findings were recorded by both the lower Courts. It has been observed by the first appellate Court that it has been mentioned in release deed itself that the property in dispute was joint family property. It is apparent from the judgment of lower Courts that the property in dispute was not exclusive property of plaintiff No.2. It was for the registration authority to see at the time of the registration of the release deed whether the same was to be registered or not and whether the same was to be exeuted on the stamp paper of more value. The question relating to the deficiency in the stamp duty could have been raised only by the State/registration authorities. This release deed operates as the transfer of the title to plaintiff No.1. When plaintiff R.S.A. No.70 of 2009 (O&M) -4- No.1 complied with the necessary conditions for the transferring the property, the defendant was bound to do so. No substantial question of law arise in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. November 10, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge