R.S.A.No. 2580 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2580 of 1988 Date of decision: 22.2.2011 Jeeta Singh and others ......Appellants Versus Joginder Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jashanpreet Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1981 passed in civil suit No. 603 of 18.12.1981 titled as Joginder Kaur and others vs. Kishan Singh. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Kishan Singh was owner of the suit land. Kishan Singh had sold the suit land vide three separate sale deeds to the plaintiffs. In December 1981, defendants in collusion with each other, got the impugned decree suffered by defendant No.1. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the sale deeds alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 had been challenged by filing a civil suit. The sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs were null and void. R.S.A.No. 2580 of 1988 2 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD. 2. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed?OPD. 3. Whether the suit is not within time?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata?OPD. 5. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP 6. Whether the suit land was the ownership of defendant No.1 Kishan Singh along with other property ? OPP 7. Whether defendant No.1 Kishan Singh sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs for valuable consideration and for legal necessity vide three registered sale deeds dated 8.9.1980 and the plaintiffs also entered into possession of the suit land ? OPP 8. Whether the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1981 passed by the Civil Court was obtained by defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendants and the same is not binding and ineffective qua the plaintiffs ? OPP 9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for ? OPP 10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP R.S.A.No. 2580 of 1988 3 11. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.1986. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.2 preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional District Judge, Faridkot vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.1988 . Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is “whether the findings of the first Appellate Court are against the evidence on record and are perverse ?” After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. The plaintiffs had filed a suit challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1981 suffered by defendant No.1 on the ground that defendant No.1 had already executed sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs and hence was no longer owner of the suit property at the time of passing of the impugned judgment and decree. Defendant No.1 had executed sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 in favour of the plaintiffs. The sale deed Ex.P-1 was executed in favour of Joginer Singh, plaintiff No.2, on 8.9.1980 qua 32 kanals of land bearing khasra No. 42//11(8-0), 10(8-0), 43//15(8-0) and 6 (8-0). The sale deed Ex.P-3 was executed by defendant No.1 qua 15 kanals 11 marlas of land bearing khasra No.11//8 (7-11) and 10(8-0) in favour of Jaswinder Singh, plaintiff No.3, on 8.9.1980 . Ex.P-5 was the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 qua 22 kanals 15 marlas of land bearing khasra Nos. 10//5(3-2), 11//1(7-2), 9/1(5- R.S.A.No. 2580 of 1988 4 7), 7/2(5-8), 2/2(1-2) in favour of Jeeta Singh, plaintiff No.1 on 10.9.1980. The said sale deeds are duly thumb marked by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1, while appearing in the witness box as DW-3 has not denied his thumb impressions on the sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5. Since, defendant No.1 had already executed sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs qua the suit property, he could not suffer a decree in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 qua the same property. Learned first Appellate Court had erred in dis- believing the sale deeds in question. The sale deeds Ex.P-1, Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-5 were not under challenge in the present suit. Rather the suit filed by defendant No.1 challenging the sale deeds executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs was dismissed being time barred. In these circumstances, the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 could not be ignored. The first Appellate Court had, thus, misread the evidence on record and the findings of the first Appellate Court are perverse. The substantial question of law that arises in this appeal stands answered accordingly. In these circumstances, first Appellate Court had erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs. The trial Court had rather rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 25.8.1988 passed by the first Appellate Court are set aside and the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1986 passed by the trial Court are upheld. (SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2011 anita