Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 23 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 Sadhu Singh and others ….Appellants Versus Lal Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms.Ravinder Kaur, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal against whom both the Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents for possession and declaration in respect of the land in dispute, described in the head note of the plaint. Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 I have heard Mr. S.C. Chhabra, Advocate, appearing for the appellants and Ms.Ravinder Kaur, Advocate, appearing for the respondents, and have gone through the records of the case. Sucha Singh, father of the plaintiffs, was originally the owner of the land in dispute. After the death of Sucha Singh, mutation in respect of the land in dispute was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. Sucha Singh had mortgaged the land in dispute with possession, which was got redeemed by the plaintiffs after making payment of the mortgage money to Gurbachan Singh and Bhajan Kaur, mortgagees. Thus, the plaintiffs became owners in possession of the suit land. The claim of defendants Nos. 10 and 11 was that Sucha Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, had sold the land in dispute to them vide sale deed No.553 dated 7.7.1990. However, the defendants did not examine a single witness to prove the execution of the alleged sale deed. Even the said original sale deed was not produced in Court. When the trial Court summoned the said sale deed, defendant No.10, Joginder Singh made a statement before the trial Court on 6.12.2000 that the summoned sale deed No.553 dated 7.7.1990 allegedly executed by Sucha Singh in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11 was not in their possession as the same had been lost. Had Sucha Singh executed any sale deed in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11, they would not have failed to produce the same in Court and to prove it on record. In such a situation, both the Courts below have rightly held that the sale deed No.553 of 7.7.1970 allegedly executed by Sucha Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in favour of defendants Nos.10 and 11 is not a legal and valid document and, as such, no right or title in respect of the suit land can be said to have ever been conveyed in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11. Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 In fact, defendants Nos. 10 and 11, on the basis of sale deed No.553 of 7.7.1970, which has remained unproved on record, as mentioned above, had got sanctioned mutation in respect of the suit land in their favour. The said mutation sanctioned in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11 was set aside by the revenue authorities at the instance of the plaintiffs and was thereafter sanctioned in favour of the plaintiffs. However, on the basis of this wrong mutation which defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had got sanctioned in their favour, they (defendants Nos. 10 and 11) had sold the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 9 vide two sale deeds. One of the plaintiffs, namely, plaintiff Lal Singh appeared in the witness box as P.W.1 and deposed with regard to all these facts. He further deposed that after the sanctioning of mutation in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11 on the basis of aforesaid forged sale deed, and then, on the basis of the sale of the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 9 by defendants Nos. 10 and 11, the plaintiffs were dispossessed from the suit land by defendants Nos. 1 to 9. Both the Courts below have returned firm findings of fact, after perusing the entire revenue record, that after the death of Sucha Singh, the real owner of the land in dispute, mutation No.9019 dated 16.5.1991 (Exhibit P.1), was sanctioned in favour of all the plaintiffs, who are the sons of Sucha Singh. However, defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had got sanctioned mutation No.9056 (Exhibit P.2) in respect of the suit land in their favour on the basis of sale deed No.553 dated 7.7.1970 allegedly executed by Sucha Singh in their favour, which sale deed was not produced on record by the said defendants. The plaintiffs filed appeal before the Collector, Sub Division, Budhlada, against the sanctioning of mutation Exhibit P.2 in favour of defendants Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 Nos. 10 and 11. The Collector, vide order dated 19.10.1993 (Exhibit P.3), rejected mutation No.9056 (Exhibit P.2) in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11. On the basis of this rejected mutation, defendants Nos. 10 and 11 filed Civil Suit No.1257 dated 2.12.1993 (Exhibit P.6) seeking a declaration that they had become owners of the suit land on the basis of aforesaid sale deed with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from dispossessing them from the suit land measuring 5 Kanals 11 Marlas. Defendant No.10 Joginder Singh executed sale deed concerning one -half of the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 4 on 16.5.1995. Defendant No.11 Mohinder Singh thereafter on 20.5.1997 executed sale deed in respect of the remaining portion of the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 5 to 9. Both these sale deeds were executed by defendants Nos. 10 and 11 in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 9 in respect of the suit land during the pendency of the suit (Exhibit P.6) filed by defendants Nos. 10 and 11 against the plaintiffs. However, that suit was later on withdrawn by defendants Nos. 10 and 11 on 23.7.1997. Counsel for defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had made statement (Exhibit P.7) before the trial Court stating that the suit (Exhibit P.6) may be dismissed as withdrawn as defendants Nos. 10 and 11 ( i.e plaintiffs of that civil suit) had been granted the required relief i.e entries in the revenue record had been incorporated in their favour. Since defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had never become owners of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 553 dated 7.7.1990, the sales made by them in respect of the suit land in favour of defendants Nos. 1 to 9 were, apparently, illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land. As such, defendants Nos. 1 to 9 were not the bona fide purchasers of the suit land. Sadhu Singh defendant (D.W.1), Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 in his cross-examination, inter alia, stated that he did not know whether defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had filed any suit dated 2.12.1993 against the plaintiffs which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 23.7.1997. It shows that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had never properly verified from the revenue authorities regarding the sanction of mutation in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and also regarding rejection of mutation, which had been wrongly sanctioned in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11 on the basis of alleged sale deed No.553 dated 7.7.1990. None appeared in the witness box on behalf of defendants Nos. 5 to 9 to support the case set up by them. The evidence of the defendants had been closed by an order of the trial Court dated 12.10.2002 when sufficient opportunities, including last opportunities, had been granted to them by the trial Court to conclude their evidence. Last opportunities had been granted to the defendants by the trial Court vide orders dated 12.12.2001, 22.12.2001, 2.2.2002, 1.3.2002, 18.3.2002, 26.4.2002, 18.5.2002, 1.6.2002, 22.76.2002 and 17.9.2002. The last witness, namely, Harnek Singh (D.W.2) had been examined by the defendants on 20.9.2000 and, thereafter, for two years they had been availing numerous opportunities to conclude their evidence. The defendants had also advanced the plea of their evidence having been closed by the trial Court before the lower appellate Court, but this plea did not find any fovour with it (lower appellate Court) and rightly so. No dispute can be allowed to remain pending indefinitely when one of the parties is not interested in its conclusion for one reason or the other. Before concluding this judgment, it may be mentioned here that the clinching factor in this case is that the land in dispute, which had been mortgaged by Sucha Singh, father of the plaintiffs, had been Regular Second Appeal No.283 of 2004 redeemed by the plaintiffs from Gurbachan Singh and Bhajan Kaur after payment of mortgage amount of Rs.500/-. The order dated 28.5.1991 (Exhibit P.8) was passed by the Collector with regard to the redemption of the suit land by the plaintiffs. Since the land in dispute was in possession of the mortgagees, defendants never came into possession of the suit land legally. In view of the factual position, discussed above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: February 23, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE