R.S.A.No. 4954 of 1999 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. R.S.A.No. 4954 of 1999 Date of decision: 11.2.2008. Bhagwan Singh Appellant. Versus Smt. Guro Bai and others Respondents. CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: - Mr.Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate, for the appellant. PERMOD KOHLI, J. Vide order dated 23.8.2007, the appellant was directed to furnish correct address of respondents No. 4, 7 to 9 and respondent No.14 who was stated to be in jail. Needful has not been done. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed qua these respondents. Heard. Plaintiffs/respondents 1 to 5, filed a suit for declaration challenging the sale deed dated 7.12.1992, in respect of land measuring 24 Kanal allegedly executed by Sona Singh, Suba Bai, Kartar Singh and Sher Singh in favour of the appellant-defendant in the suit, on the allegations that the same has been procured by impersonation. it is alleged in the plaint that husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiffs No. 2 to 4, Kartar Singh and Sona Singh, were the co-sharers in the land . Sona Singh is stated to have expired 17/18 years back and Kartar Singh expired on 9.12.1990. The plaintiffs also claimed their 1/9th share in the suit property being successors of the original owner. R.S.A.No. 4954 of 1999 2 The defendant-appellant stated that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the land. It is alleged that defendant No.4, who used to live in village approached defendant No.1 for the sale of land in question and also identified the vendors and if impersonation is done, the same is by defendant No.4. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the sale deed in question has been procured by impersonation on behalf of all the vendors and consequently, suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide its judgment and decree dated 18.2.1997and sale deed dated 7.12.1992 is set aside. Aggrieved of the same, Mr.Bhagwan Singh, defendant No.1 preferred an appeal, which has also been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.1999, passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. The plea of bona fide purchaser has not been accepted by the Courts below and rightly so, as the defendant-appellant herein has not brought on record any proof in this regard. There is nothing on record to show that the defendant No.1 made any enquiry before purchase. The defendant even admitted impersonation but shifted the responsibility to defendant No.4. However, defendant No.1 is the beneficiary of impersonation and fraud. Under the given circumstances, plea of bona fide purchaser is not available to the purchaser of land. There is concurrent finding of fact . No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE February 11, 2008. Anoop R.S.A.No. 4954 of 1999 3