RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1221 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:November 23 , 2009 Sadha Singh ...........Appellant Versus Raghbir Singh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sanjiv Manrai, Advocate for the appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.2006. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1-Sadha Singh filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 2 decree dated 23.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No.1. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment reads as under:- “2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed No.1399 dated 25.2.97 regarding land measuring 6 Kanal 15 Marla, fully detailed and described in head note of he plaint, in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and result of fraud and collusion and is liable to be set aside and that plaintiff is liable to be declared owner of the suit land. Permanent injunction was also sought for restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from alienating, selling and from making interference in any manner and from implementing the sale deed in the revenue record in respect of the suit land. As per plaintiff, he purchased the suit land along with other land from Sher Singh vide sale deed dated 2.1.97, Area of Killa No.6//24 min was wrongly mentioned as 0- 15 Marla and the same was corrected through Tatima Sale deed No.843 dated 12.10.99. It is stated that defendant No.2 sold the suit land to defendant No.1 vide sale deed No.1399 dated 25.2.97 has been challenged on the ground that it is illegal, null and void and is result of fraud and collusion of defendants No. 1 and 2; that defendant No.2 was not competent to sell any land more than her share and defendant No.2 was not competent to sell any land more than her share and defendant No.2 was never in possession and she sold specific khasra number without partition of the land. It is further stated that defendant No.1 is bent upon to alienation the RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 3 land in suit. Hence,the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement denying that plaintiff purchased the suit land from Sher Singh. It is stated that Sher Singh had no right or authority to sell the same. However, it has been admitted that defendant No.2 sold the suit land to defendant No.1 on 25.2.97. I is stated that defendant No.2 had full right to sell the land and that defendant No. 1 was in possession of the land and he is bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice regarding the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. 4. In the replication,the plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and controverted the pleas taken in the written statement.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the sale deed No.1399 dated 25.2.97 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void?OPP 3. Relief". After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.2.1997 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 4 was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the suit property prior to the execution of the said sale deed dated 25.2.1997. The case of defendant No.1-appellant was that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration. Defendant No.1-appellant, while appearing in the witness box, in his cross examination deposed that he did not know when Raghbir Singh had purchased the suit land. He had not filed any petition under Section 11 of Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. However the stand taken by the appellant- defendant No.1 in a civil suit filed by him against the plaintiff and others was different. A copy of the judgment passed in Civil Suit No. 274-T of 9.9.02/04 (Exhibit P6) is a very material document in this regard. In the said suit, the case of the appellant was as under:- "Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the land as mentioned in the head note of the plaint originally belong to Gram Panchayat/Gram Sahba of Village Bibipur Tehsil and Distt. Patiala. The plaintiff along with performa defendants were tenant of the land in question on rent. The said rent is being paid by the plaintiff and Sukhdev Singh. It is submitted that the right holder of the Village filed the petition under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holding Act and Additional Director of Consolidation vide his judgment allowed the same including the land in question. The order of the director was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is alleged in the said proceedings the plaintiff and proforma defendants and other tenant namely Kartera Ram were not made party. Thereafter, the plaintiff along with Sukhdev Singh filed a petition under Section 11 of Punjab Village RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 5 Common Land Act before the competent authority to the effect that the said land be reserved to the gram Panchayat. It is alleged that without doing anything in that proceedings the Collector vacated the stay order granted to petitioner. It is submitted that the case is still pending before Deputy Director (Panchayat) Exercising the powers of Collector. It is further submitted that the plaintiff also filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, as well as preferred CWP No. 2303 of 2001 challenging the order of director and other proceedings. However, they failed to get any relief. It is submitted that mutation was sanctioned in favour of the share holder of Village and one of the share holder Devo has sold her share to the plaintiff vide sale deeds dated 21.1.1993 and 29.5.2002. It is further submitted that Sukhdev Singh who was in possession of the land along with the plaintiff surrendered the possession of land to the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff has become the exclusive owner of land in question on the basis of abvoesaid sale deeds. However, defendants are now alleging themselves to be the owner of the said land without any right, title or authority. They are also threatening to dispossess the plaintiff. Hence the present suit." Appellant,however, failed to lead any evidence in support of his case and,consequently, the suit of the appellant was dismissed vide Exhibit P6. Thus, the plaintiff was not held to be owner of the suit land on the basis of the sale deeds dated 21.1.1993 and 29.5.2002. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the appellant had failed to prove that he was owner of the suit land. Rather, the plaintiff had successfully proved the RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 6 execution of the sale deeds dated 2.1.1997 and 12.10.1999 in his favour vide which he had purchased the suit land. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge November 23 , 2009 arya RSA No.1221 of 2009 (O&M) 7