Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 3809 of 2005 Date of Decision: 4.11.2008 Ghan Shayam …Appellant Versus Om Parkash and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Ghan Shayam son of Naraini Devi instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying that the sale deed dated 30.12.1988 executed by his mother Naraini Devi qua half share of the land detailed and described in the head note of the plaint in favour of respondent Om Parkash son of Jagan Ram is illegal and is liable to be set aside. Briefly stated, it was pleaded in the suit that Ghan Shayam, Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2005 2 plaintiff and proforma defendants to the suit i.e. Om Parkash and Mohan Lal, his brothers and Makhan Lal, his father, are owners in possession of 2/5th share and his mother Naraini Devi, defendant No.2, was owner in possession of 1/10th share in the suit land as per judgment and decree dated 28.2.1991. It was averred that on basis of judgment and decree dated 28.2.1991, mutation No. 1764 has not been sanctioned and no entry in the revenue record was reflected and wrongly Naraini Devi was recorded as owner of the half share of the suit land. It was further pleaded that his mother Naraini Devi taking advantage of wrong entry had sold the suit land to Om Parkash son of Jagan Ram, respondent/defendant No.1. A grievance was made that respondent/defendant No.1 being a head-strong person was making efforts to take possession of the suit land. Notice of the suit was issued. Defendants No.3 and 4 being brothers of plaintiff Ghan Shayam filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Father Makhan Lal had not appeared and he was proceeded against ex parte. He was arrayed as defendant No.5 to the suit. Naraini Devi, mother of the plaintiff filed the written statement, which was only to promote and propagate the cause of plaintiff. She has stated that she has not got any sale deed dated 30.12.1998 executed in favour of Om Parkash son of Jagan Ram, defendant No.1. She had got relations with him and she was brought to Loharu and on the pretext that old age pension is to be obtained for her, her photographs and thumb impressions were taken. Respondent Om Parkash son of Jagan Ram, defendant No.1, Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2005 3 filed a written statement. He stated that t the instance of plaintiff and his father Om Parkash he had purchased the plot as they were in need of money to perform the marriage of the sister of the plaintiff. It was stated that the settlement was arrived at the instance of plaintiff, he had called his mother and thereafter on payment of sale consideration, sale deed was executed. A counter-claim was also set up by respondent/defendant No.1 claiming that he be declared owner of 1/10th share of Naraini Devi in the land described measuring 60 kanals 12 marlas and 2 kanals in view of balance sale consideration. Learned trial Court had drawn the issues, subsequently additional issues were drawn and later issues were re-arranged. Parties to the suit led oral evidence and also tendered documents. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing for respondent No.1 stated that earlier a civil suit was instituted in the year 1987 by Naraini Devi against her husband Makhan Lal who suffered a consent decree of half share in favour of Naraini Devi vide judgment & decree dated 28.1.1987. According to him, this decree has become final. Thereafter, another civil suit was filed bearing No. 434 on 20.11.1987. This suit was instituted by Mohan Lal son of Makhan Lal, proforma defendant No.4, against his parents Naraini Devi and Makhan Lal. In this, an ex parte decree was passed. According to this, Naraini Devi was said to be owner of 1/10th share and the judgment & decree dated 28.1.1987 was set aside. Mr. Bhardwaj submits that this was a Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2005 4 collusive litigation. However, in the revenue record, Naraini Devi continued to be shown as owner of half share. After taking the entire evidence into consideration, learned Court below held that the plaintiff and the proforma defendants cannot be declared owner in possession of the suit land and the sale deed dated 30.12.1998 cannot be declared as illegal, null and void as in the revenue record, Naraini Devi has been shown to be owner of half share and defendant Om Parkash was bonafide purchaser. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that once it has come in evidence that subsequent decree has not been noticed in the revenue record and it was wrongly reflected that Naraini Devi was owner of half share, therefore, the sale deed executed by Naraini Devi in favour of respondent/defendant No.1 cannot be upheld. To counter this, Mr. Bhardwaj has stated that the total land was 60 kanals 12 marlas. He has stated that even if it is held that Naraini Devi is owner of 1/10th share then 6 kanals will fall to her share and she has only sold 1 kanal of land in favour of respondent/defendant No.1. In facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that dispute has been raised by the family members to deprive defendant No.1, benefit of sale deed executed in his favour. Two Courts below have appreciated the evidence and have recorded concurrent finding of fact. The counter-claim of respondent/defendant No.1 has also not been accepted. In the present appeal, no substantial question of law arise. Regular Second Appeal No.3809 of 2005 5 Therefore, no interference is called for. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 4, 2008 “DK”