IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Regular Second Appeal No.352 of 1998. Judgment Reserved on: 21.04.2009. Date of decision: 26 .05.2009 Shakuntla Devi & Others …Appellants Versus Ganga Ram & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr.Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Pt.Om Parkash, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This is the defendants’ appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court affirmed by the learned appellate Court, accepting the claim of the plaintiff-respondents granting them a decree for declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land and the revenue entries to the contrary are illegal, void and are not binding on the interests of the plaintiffs. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from interfering in the suit land in any manner whatsoever was also prayed for. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 The respondent-plaintiffs preferred a suit for declaration on the basis of ownership of suit land comprised in Khewat No.11 Khatauni No.15 Khasra Nos.56, 125, 131, 155, 206, 214, 281, 300, 356, 357, 448, 455, 530, 402, plots 14, measuring 10-0-5 Bighas, situated in Mauja Chanol, Pargana Nalli, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. The plaintiffs claimed title to the suit land by virtue of a registered sale deed Ex.PW-1/A, dated 29th October, 1976, executed by the appellant-defendants in their favour. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendants, in connivance with the revenue authorities, were claiming sole ownership of this land on the basis that appellant-defendants Naresh Kumar, Durga Dutt and Smt.Shakuntala had inducted appellant No.4 Roop Ram (now represented by proforma respondents No.5, 6 and 7) as a tenant and that he had, as such, become the owner of the land. This was the primary defence amongst other grounds set forth to annul the claim of the plaintiffs. On the vital issue, as to whether the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A was obtained by undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud, no sale consideration having passed to the defendants, the trial Court held against the appellants which findings were affirmed by the appellate Court. The other defence set forth that defendant No.4 Roop Ram had become the owner of the land by virtue of the tenancy created in its favour was also negatived. On appeal, the learned District Judge, affirmed the findings of the learned trial Court. The defendants are now in 3 appeal before this Court. This appeal was admitted on 5.1.1999 on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the property belonging to the minor could have been validly conveyed without the permission of the Court as envisaged under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and Guardian Wards Act? 2. When the Defendant is entered in the revenue record to be a tenant prior to the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs, was the Civil Suit maintainable in the Civil Court challenging the entries in the Revenue Record showing the status of the said defendant not to be that of tenant, are not these questions specifically within the jurisdiction of the Revenue Officer? 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs can be held to be within the period of limitation when the learned lower Appellate Court has erroneously rejected the application for amendment of the Written Statement moved by the Defendant- Appellants which was absolutely necessary for deciding the real controversy between the parties and having the effect of going to the root of the matter? 4 4. Whether the Sale Deed was void ab initio on account of the fact that the same was a fabricated and manipulated document and was effected by fraud and undue influence and misrepresentation, could the said document be held to be legal when the Revenue Authorities refused to acknowledge the same to be the valid document while refusing the attestation of the mutation on the basis of such document? Question No.1: This question need not detain this Court any further because there is no evidence on the record to show that any of the executants of sale deed were minor on the day when the sale deed was executed. In-fact, Smt.Shakuntala, defendant No.3, has unequivocally admitted in her evidence that at the time when the document was registered none of the vendors was a minor. This question is accordingly decided against the appellants. Question No.2: There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below that there was no tenancy in favour of Roop Ram. In-fact the trial Court notices that defendant No.4 Roop Ram never appeared as a witness and there was no evidence on the record as to when and how he was so inducted. The revenue record also did not support 5 this contention. This finding of the fact as has been affirmed by the appellate Court is accordingly decided against the appellants. Question No.3: There is no material on the record to establish that the suit of the plaintiff is beyond the period of limitation. Having gone through the record I also do not find that there has been any error of law/jurisdiction committed by the Courts below in rejecting the application for amendment. As would be apparent and evident, on the question of title as having held ultimately in favour of the plaintiffs, I do not see any reason to interfere in Second Appeal considering the fact that the evidence has been properly appreciated by both the Courts below. This question is also decided against the appellants. Question No.4: Learned counsel has argued with vehemence that the sale deed is not attested in accordance with law inasmuch as a bare perusal of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A shows that only one witness was present at the time of its execution. He submits that the noncompliance of the mandatory provisions of law would render this instrument void ab-initio. This submission cannot be accepted. The deed was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar and the vendor has in no uncertain terms admitted the authenticity of the deed. At the relevant time, she has been identified by the witnesses in accordance with law. Having once accepted that the land has been sold, and a valid registered instrument executed, I do not find any illegality in the execution 6 of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/A. This question is also decided against the appellants. There is, thus, no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 26, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.