431 t 4 le RSA No 2978 of2008 4 IN THE lllt COURTOF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA N 2978of2008 Dateofdecisionl 120012010 Varinder Pal Appellant VERSUS MohinderPal Singhand others Respondems 1 L CORAMlHON131 MR JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA 0 Present1 Mrurcsll t loel Advocate for the 0 Mrrihhliwan Singla Advocate for lhe legal of I no 1 t5 3k 8 8 4t8 I RAJIVE BHAl J IORALI Z Thc challengesthe and decree dated Q 04022008 Ilythe Addilional District JudgeBarnalaaccepting the flled by No 1 setting aside the and decree 08 dated Ol J9211115llassedbythe Civil JudgeouniorDivisionlBarnalaand CO asa conseqticllct tlccrccing lhe suit againstlhe appellant V Z 11 Ie plainIi NoJ flled a suil for and 111 Qm addition pr2iyetl Ihal lhc sale deeddated 11072002111072002and the sale deed datccl 112 IH2002 exccutedby ManjitKauIefcndant Nol 6since dcceasedand i Iow by her IcgalheirsJbe declarednull and void The plaintiffplcatlctlthal he had the suit propcrtyfrom Karnail Singhvide rcgislered sale deed dated 0908002 who had in turn lhc SUIIIaild froin Mohan Lal and Lachhlni Narain vide saledeed datcd 171 11981 As ManjitKaur has no righttillc or intcrest in thc suit land she could iIol cxecute any sale deed in favour of Varindcr Pal Singh 6theappellailllaild Daya NoA It was furthcrpleadcdthat Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 15: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 432 RSA No 2978 of2008 2m as the Nol was forcibly tlll hethereforefiled a sliil for 4 1l rCSlltlllse Manj il Kaur flled a written stateinent denying the avermentsin tlle pliliilllhe execution of a salc deed dated 17 I l 986 by Mohan Lal and Lacllhini Narain Ill favourof Karnail Singhand 111tlirn i that shc halI the suit land from Mohan Lal andLachhmi Narain llyway t11ii IlrilIrsalc deeddated10071 985 It was funher 0 0 thatin 1988Karnail Slllgh lllade an attempt to take forciblc Sllc I filed a suit 101ICl illailent injunction which was dismissedas withdrawn C I afterKarnail SiIlglislopped in her The Z defendant Ntl 2l atld tleenclant No3 Oled a written statelnent reiteratilg the facls IlyManjitKaur but assertedlllal after the salc of thc suil C land to ManiitKatir her vendors Mohan Lal and Lachhmi Narain were not I O Iell wilh an sllllslslillginlerest lhat theycould have validlytransferredto OO Karnail Singh 11lesilc dccd executedby Karnail Singhin favour of the 7 Z Ntll is lhereforc null and void r Aller cllilsidering the trial Courl framedissues and llpOll 21 considcralitIllof lloe pleadingsthe evidenceadduced and lhe addrcssed dislnisseclthc suil Aggrievcdlly thc aforementionedjudgmcntand decree lhe Ncl l filed an appealVide and decree dated 0402008 Ihe Jlirsl AppellateCourt accepted the appealset aside the j and decrce passcdby the trial Courl and dccrcecl the suit by holdingthatrespIndenl Nol is entitledto ofthe suit propertyas reflectedin Ille sale decd dated09082002 The First AppellaleCourt held that the salc 0Ieetlsdaled I l 0700211 1072002 and 02082002 have no Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 15: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 433 r 1 8e RSA No 2978 of2008 r effecton the No1 andthereforerestrained the and ntl2 ltl 4 froln raisingany constructionover thesuitproperly or alicnalingthe suilIailcl Counsel for thc l2ii11sublnits that First Appellate Courts anddecree is illegaliilill iind void ManjitKaur the m the suil laild lly way of a sale deed dated 10071 985 1 whereasKarnail Singhthc vcndoi ol No1 the samc 0 0 land fromManjitKaurs vendtIrslly way of a saledeeddated I 17 11986 As the salc deed in llivour of the vendor was prior C I lilnc10 the sale clccd iil avtlur of the jolainti ffs vendor the Firsl Ill er Z Courl has coinmillcd111 error bydecreeing lhe suit Itisargucd that afterthe execution of lhe sale deed dated 101985 Mohan Lal and 0 Lachhini Narain had no suhisl iIlginterest in the suil land that could be 08 lo lhe plaintiflsveild0r Karnail SinghThe plaintiH tllerere OCl could not have beenhcld t Ile wncr on the basisofa sale deedexecutedin 7 Z his favourby Karnail Singli Il is furtoherarguedthat thc First Appellate CL Courl has coininilted grave Clls whileexainining the boundariesof the SUlt landdepiclecl in the saledecdsand byrelyingupon the site planso as to hold that the has citcroachedupon SUlt land that belongsIo tllC Nul Il is submitted that lll view of the errors committedIl1lhe lirst AIlIlellalc Coult the llowingsulostantialqticstioils oflaw arise lor 6il Whether a IlCrSOllcan pass a bettertitle then he himsclf ln the preselllcase Ille originalowner hadalready transferredhis inlerestiil Iltltllir tl1 thc vendor of the appellanland Karnail Singhhad iltll 17cetl the rightOr interesl to transfcr thesame ill 1011t111 of lhe Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 15: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document J 434 r RSA No 2978 of2008 04 5d 1 iilWhetherthe plainlillhas to prove his case byleadingcogcnt ancl cvitlentcaild nottorclyupon the weaknessofthe dcfendanl2 any flildiilgswhich are not in controversycan bealso consideredat tlle tllllC of passingthe flnal or wrllng 0 1 Ilicls ind Iaws are suslainablein the eyes of Iaw9 j Counselfor thc Illainti no on the other hand l 0 submitsthat the judgmetlt does not suffer from any error as 0 wouldrequireinterlcrcnce Ilt Iliisl Court has iightlyheld lllal I C5 aRcr lhccxcculioil ol lhc s decd in favour of ManjitKaur hcr venclors I MohanLal and Lachhini Naraiil reinaincd owners of a parcelof land wllicll Z theyvalidlysold to Karlliii l Singh lt is argued that a referenccto the C boundarics and lhe tlleastireillClllS Sel Out lll the sale deeds clearly I estahlishcs that lhc l7irvtAjlllel liile Court has rightlyhcld in favour of 08 No 1 0 J have heard coliilscl lor lhe partiesperusedthe 7 Z recordcdIoythe Courls lclllli aild exloresslny inaloililyto hold tIlal thc and decrce passetlIll lllc lirst AppellaleCourt suffersOconlany error as would raise a sullst2lillial of law The dispulein thc presentappealrelates to Illc of the SUlt land The appellant allegeslhal thcsuil IanclIiIS lIld to his vendor ManjitKaur vidc sale deed clalecl1007 1985Iovhere2is Ille Nol alleges that it was sold to his vendor vide siile tleeddaled 171 11986 If thesefacts wcre truc the ctltild vallt11111r1clhal with the execution of the sale deed dalcd 10171 985 Mohtiii laI i111ILachhmi Narain weie not left witll any llltcresl as could be Iralitllylranslerrcd to Karnail Singh thc plailIlis Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 15: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 435 1 1 RSA No 2978 of2008 5m V veildor I lowcver as i from lhe bouildariesrecordedilI the 1 lhc ineasurenleill sel clut tllerein even after the execution of sale deeddated10071985 Mtlllan Lal andLachhmiNarain remainedIwners of lheremaining Ianclwliicll Illey sold to Karnail Singh The ancl Jlis 17ct1t1trIlaveencroachedupon this land dcspilcthe cl thalthad beensold hv Karilail Singh10 the Nol The First Courl Ilasexaininedthe sale deeds the boundaricsand the 0 sct olit 1ii lllc sale deeds while holdingas above The C I tlf act recordctl I lllc lirsl Appellale Collil do llot sul 0oln ally C5 I of evideilce IlIilure lo consider relevanl evideilcc oi aily in the process0f reasoning as would raise substantialquestion Of Z law Iil order lo p10eIlle Ilndings of fact recordeclbythe First 0 CourlIli lllcir e0rrec t Ile rspccli vc re ferencc would llave to loe 08 made to a relevatltcxtriict llotn the impugned which reads as m followsl 7 Ntlll il has to be seen as to whether Mohan Lal and Z Lachhlni Naitl wcrc Iell with any propertyal the titne of CL cxecutoion t11 lIle sale deed in favourof defendant Ntll or not XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX As jler lhe sale deed Ex5 in favour of Kamail Singh thc 1rIlerll lli llceil shown to lle bounded on the wcstern side ailll tllc pi Il Illc dcfeildanl No 1 Iil thesecircunlslances il IS cmcrgiilg tIil record that at the first instance Mohiin Lal and Lachhmi Narain had sold the property 57x76 to ManjitKalir iiild sold the propertymeasliring 28x 81lo Karilail Singh The propertywhich was sold to Karnail Singllw as illl Illc stcm side oflhe propertyof NlanjilKaur As perlhe dii1ici15it3ils nlenlioned in the site lolanED4 tllc propcrty of thc defendant No 1 on the southernside lneasures 88 which Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 15: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 436 r RSA No 2978of2008 e V cicarle indicalcs tllitl Illetlecndant No I has encroachedupon oftlle pl2lliltl I also bemenlionedherethal in the sale decdcopy whercol is I5x P6 in favourof ManjitKaur thc property1S shownttl IoeIloundcdon the eastern side by thc 01 Mohail l al atld achhmiNarainand thcIoroperty on tlle easttril sitle has been sold bysaid MohanIal and LachhjniNariijl i Karilail Singh As per the version Of the plaintiffthc suitjlrtlllertyis boundedon the eastern sideby lhe of earlicr 1irsetn Singhand at presentBikkar Singh 0 1ven in thc sitc Illatl1x 104the defendantNo hasdepicted the 0 roperlyo13ikkaiSillglllobc on thc eastern side ofthe ptupcrly I C0 menlionedtherein Ivllcrcas as per thcsale deed in her favour the I 1yher was boundedon the eastern sidebythe of Mohon Lal and Lachhmi Narain It indicatesthat the Z delcndantNol Ilas cncroached upon the suit propertyancl Illc jlliiiltiffis entitlcd lo the thereof In Q the site plali 1xl Icl Ihe propertywhich was sold to dcfcndant I Nos2 and 3 have lleen depicted in blue colour which are tcIwards 08 the eastern sit1e0fllle propertymentionedin the plan ln these C ClrCunlslanceS tIle salc deeds copieswhereof are Ex P3 and am ilx4 havc Iltl tlflect on the rightsof the plainliffand to this Z extcnt the IiIltIiilIsll thc Icarned Lower Court on issue No arc s lnodiOecl 51 The subslaillial Iliestionsof law framedby couilsel for the ollliillt 111Illy CtlllSideitd llpiniondo not arise for The appellanl has encr02ic11ttl11011Iand that belongsto the plaintiffand therefore cannot IleIlealrl ttl urge that in view of the sale decd executed 111 his favolir the alllleil slltIlild be The appellanlas lS apparent frtlin Ihe salc dccds Ilils Iltl righl titIe or interest in the suit liind As a consequencc theapIIcal is dismissedwith no order as lo costs AJ 1Ol2010 RAJIVE BHALLAI shamsher JUIIGE i 3 Rawat Seema 2012.11.22 15: 16 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document