Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 Date of decision: September 09, 2009 Gurmel Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Dal Singh …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT:Mr Vivek Singla, Advocate Mr Vivek Suri, Advocate T.P.S.MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for possession of the land was dismissed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jind on 18.5.1987. The said judgment and decree was challenged by the appellant by filing first appeal, which was also dismissed by Additional District Judge (II), Jind on 3.2.1989. He is now before this Court by way of second appeal. According to the plaintiff, the suit property comprised in Khewat No.72, Khatoni No.108, Muraba No.166, measuring 0-5 marlas and Khewat No.94, Khatoni No.130, Rect. No.32, Killa No. 13 min (4-0) was previously owned by his father Rulia, who died about 3 ½ years before the filing of the Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 -2- suit. Upon his death, his property was inherited by the plaintiff, his brother, sisters and mother. However, the defendant had forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff and other co-sharers of the suit property, inspite of having no right, title or interest in the same. Hence, the suit for possession. In his written statement, the defendant raised preliminary objection that the plaintiff had not impleaded the other co-sharers as parties, though he claimed himself to be a co- sharer in the suit land and, therefore, the suit was not maintainable. Also Jati- real brother of the plaintiff had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction qua the suit land, which was dismissed as withdrawn. On merits, it was submitted that during his life time, deceased-father of the plaintiff sold the suit land to the defendant on 28.9.1981 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- in the presence of Panchayat and executed a writing in that regard, besides delivering actual physical possession. In case, it was found that a regular sale deed ought to have been executed and registered, he was entitled to get it so registered from the legal heirs of deceased Rulia. However, he was owner in possession of the suit property since 28.9.1981, whereupon he had constructed four walls, planted trees, etc. In his replication, the plaintiff averred that Rulia did not execute any writing to the effect that he had sold the suit Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 -3- land to the defendant. In case, any such writing did exist, it was forged and fabricated one. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record, learned Courts below held that the plot measuring 0-5 marlas, comprised in Khewat No.72, which was previously owned and possessed by Rulia, was sold by him during his life time for valuable consideration to the defendant and therefore, it had not devolved upon the legal heirs of Rulia. However, the remaining portion of the land, measuring 4 kanals, comprised in Khewat No.94 was not shown or proved to have been owned by Rulia and therefore, its ownership also did not devolve upon his legal heirs. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the sale of immovable property of Rs.100/- or above, requires compulsory registration. As the alleged sale transaction claimed by the defendant had not been got registered, no reliance could be placed upon the same so as to hold that during his life time, deceased father of the plaintiff had sold 5 marlas of land, situated in Khewat no.72 to the defendant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent stated that the suit property was sold by Rulia in his favour as was reflected in bahi entry mark 'A'. Even the witnesses examined Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 -4- by the plaintiff admitted that the land was sold by father of the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff also went on to state that his father had transferred the land to the defendant, though according to him it was by way of lease. He was, however, expressing ignorance about there being any sale effected by his father in favour of the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence. In order to show that the plot/land measuring 5 marlas, situated in Khewat No.72 was sold by Rulia, father of the plaintiff, in favour of the defendant, the latter produced only a photo copy of the bahi entry mark 'A'. There is no other writing made by Rulia regarding the sale transaction. However, this would not make any difference as PW-2 Mange and PW-3 Giani Ram deposed about the sale of aforementioned land by Rulia in favour of the defendant for an amount of Rs.3,800/- and the said amount being paid in their presence. The sale transaction had been effected in the presence of the Panchayat of the village. After the sale in question, Rulia alongwith his wife and children permanently shifted from the village. Even the plaintiff while appearing as PW-1, admitted that the village Panchayat was convened three/four times regarding the aforementioned plot, wherein it was decided that the plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 -5- should give Rs.3,800/- to the defendant. In case, his father had not transferred the land to the defendant, the plaintiff ought not to have agreed to give Rs.3,800/- to the defendant. He also admitted that while leaving the village, his father gave land on lease. When it was suggested to him that his father had sold the plot to the defendant, his reply was that he did not know about the same. In view of the above, it stands established that father of the plaintiff had sold the land/plot, measuring 5 marlas to the defendant in the year 1981. Mere fact that no formal sale deed was executed or got registered by the defendant is no ground to hold that it was not a valid document, on account of it being not registered, as it was in the form of an agreement to sell. It did not require compulsory registration. Both the parties had performed their respective parts of the agreement, as the defendant paid an amount of Rs.3,800/- and in return, Rulia father of the plaintiff delivered the possession of the plot, measuring 5 marlas to the defendant. Only formality of execution of sale deed and its registration remained. In view of the above, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below cannot be interferred with and that too, in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The Regular Second Appeal No.1091 of 1989 -6- question of law as to whether any document transferring or conferring title or interest in immovable property of Rs.100/- or more, requires compulsory registration, does not arise for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and therefore, dismissed. September 09, 2009. (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE