RSA No.830 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.830 of 2000 Date of decision: 19.3.2009 Rajjan Singh ......Appellant Versus Kulwant Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby a suit for declaration with consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction regarding the suit land, has been dismissed. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was, that Veeran who was her nearest collateral, was the owner of the suit land. On 16.2.1963, she mortgaged this land with Tara Singh-defendant No.4 for a sum of Rs.2,000/- and subsequently got it redeemed on 1.2.1965. However, the suit property remained in possession of aforesaid Tara Singh. Veeran died in the year 1968 and, thereafter, the plaintiff being her nearest collateral became the owner of the suit property. According to him, Tara Singh continued paying the share of produce to the plaintiff till 1992 and, thereafter, he refused to pay the same alleging that Veeran had sold the suit property to defendants No.1 to 3 in the year 1981 and they have become the owners thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached the revenue Authorities and found that defendants No.1 to 3 have been recorded as owners of the suit land on the basis of mutation sanctioned in RSA No.830 of 2000 2 their favour as per sale deed dated 17.6.1981. It was further alleged in the suit that Veeran never executed the aforesaid sale deed. She had died in 1968 and, therefore, could not have executed the sale deed in the year 1981. The thumb impression on the sale deed was fake and the sale deed had been procured by producing some fake lady by impersonation and, therefore, the defendants had committed a fraud. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit for obtaining a decree for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 17.6.1981 was fraudulent, bogus and forged document and therefore, the same was ineffective and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff who was the only surviving legal heir and successor in interest of Veeran deceased. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from alienating the suit property. Defendants No.4 to 6, 8 and 9 did not contest the suit even after service. Defendants No.1 to 3 and 7 contested the suit by raising various preliminary objections in their written statement. On merits, it was admitted that Veeran was the owner of the suit property. However, relationship of the appellant with her was denied. It was also denied that she died in the year 1968 and that the plaintiff had become the owner of the suit property. Possession of Tara Singh over the suit property was also denied. According to them, Veeran sold the suit property to them vide sale deed dated 17.6.1981 and received the sale consideration of Rs.37,000/- and put them in possession of the suit land and that defendants No.1 to 3 were bona fide purchasers for a consideration. It was denied that a fake person was put up as Veeran and that the sale deed was a bogus and fraudulent document. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective contentions. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both RSA No.830 of 2000 3 the counsel for the parties and after perusing the evidence on the file dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the appellant has failed to prove his relationship with Veeran and therefore, he cannot be held to be entitled to the estate of Veeran and was not entitled to the possession of the suit property. It was further held by the trial Court that the plaintiff had also failed to prove that the sale deed in question was invalid and not binding upon him. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.6.1999. The Lower Appellate Court while affirming the findings of the trial Court recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to establish on record that Veeran died in the year 1968 and therefore, she could not execute the alleged sale deed dated 17.6.1981. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court that sale deed Ex.D1 is proved to have been executed by Veeran and was a valid document. Still not satisfied, learned counsel for the appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and decrees of the Courts below. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the appeal. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove the death of Veeran who was admittedly the owner of the suit property in the year 1968 and thus, failed to prove that she could not execute the sale deed in question on 17.6.1981. The Courts below have also recorded a finding of fact that the sale deed in question was duly executed by Veeran RSA No.830 of 2000 4 and there was no evidence to prove the assertion of the appellant that the same was a forged document. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any infirmity or perversity in the aforesaid finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 19, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE