R.S.A.No. 399 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 399 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.1.2011 Krishan Lal ......Appellant Versus Tejbir Singh Mann .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to deliver the vacant possession of the house of the plaintiff measuring 65 square yards forming part of khasra No.4334/2/1. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the defendant was owner in possession of the house measuring 65 square yards which formed part of khasra No.4334/1/2. The defendant had sold R.S.A.No. 399 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the same to the plaintiff for a consideration of ` 51,000/- vide sale deed dated 8.3.2000. The defendant delivered the possession of the house to the plaintiff. In the last week of March 2000 the defendant requested the plaintiff that he be allowed to live in the house in question as licencee as he had no other place to live in. The request of the defendant was accepted by the plaintiff and the possession of the first floor of the house was handed over to the defendant as a licencee. The defendant had, however, failed to deposit the electricity charges. Plaintiff issued a notice terminating the license of the defendant. The defendant had failed to reply the said notice. The defendant, in his written statement, averred that a fraud had been committed upon him by the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 8.3.2000 was false and fabricated. The defendant had never sold his house to the plaintiff nor had ever gone to the office of Sub Registrar. The plaintiff had got the sale deed registered by impersonation. The defendant had given the original sale deed dated 29.6.1998 to the plaintiff as security qua the loan amount taken by the plaintiff on account of marriage of his daughter. The plaintiff had also got the signatures and thumb impression of the defendant on some blank papers. In fact, the defendant had purchased the suit property from Ram Pyari Sharma for a consideration of ` 50,000/- on 29.6.1998 and had, thereafter, raised construction on the same. There was no occasion for the defendant to sell the same for a R.S.A.No. 399 of 2011 (O&M) 3 consideration of ` 51,000/- in the year 2000. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether defendant is liable to be directed to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether defendant is further liable to be restrained from alienating the house in dispute to any one ? OPP 3. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has got no locus standi? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 8.6.2009. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Panipat. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the defendant-appellant was the owner of the house in question as he had purchased the same vide sale deed dated 29.6.1998. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the appellant had executed the sale deed dated 8.3.2000 in favour of the plaintiff or not. The appellant has taken the R.S.A.No. 399 of 2011 (O&M) 4 plea that the sale deed dated 8.3.2000 was a result of fraud and misrepresentation and did not bear his thumb impression or signatures. The Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the sale deed dated 8.3.2000 was duly executed by the appellant in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to rebut the said finding of fact. The sale deed in question bears the photograph of the appellant and was duly got registered in the office of the Sub Registrar. Although the sale deed has been signed by the appellant but at the time of registration the appellant has affixed his thumb impressions. There is nothing on record to suggest that the sale deed did not bear the signatures or thumb impressions of the appellant. Moreover, the sale deed, vide which the appellant had purchased the property, was also in the possession of the plaintiff which leads to the presumption that the defendant-appellant had handed over the same to the plaintiff at the time of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The fact that the appellant had purchased the property for ` 50,000/- and sold the same after two years for a sum of ` 51,000/- would not be in itself a sufficient ground to hold that the sale deed was illegal or invalid. It was for the appellant to have fix the sale price. Once the execution of the sale deed was duly proved by the plaintiff, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises R.S.A.No. 399 of 2011 (O&M) 5 in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 27, 2011 anita