R.S.A. No. 2352 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2352 of 2007 Date of Decision: 8.5.2009 Nachattar Singh ....Appellant Versus Satpal Singh (deceased) through his LRs and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In pursuance of the order dated February 10, 2009, passed by this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.2500/- as costs with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh and a receipt thereof has been produced in the Court which is taken on record. Being unsuccessful before the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2006 passed by the first appellate court, affirming that of the trial Court dated 20.12.2005 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction was dismissed. Put shortly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff's father, Hazura Singh was owner of 1/5th share in the land measuring 542 kanals 10 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Khara, Tehsil and District Mansa (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) as per jamabandi for the year 1987-88. The suit land was R.S.A. No. 2352 of 2007 -2- ancestral and coparcenary property. The plaintiff being natural born son of Hazura Singh was a member of Joint Hindu family. Said Hazura Singh expired and the mutation in respect of his 1/5th share was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff and thereby he had become owner in possession of the same. It was pleaded that the defendants taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of Hazura Singh connived with his relative and got sale deed No. 856 executed on 7.6.1976 in their favour. On 9.6.1976, they presented the said sale deed before the Sub- Registrar, Mansa for its registration by producing some other person to impersonate as Hazura Singh. It was further pleaded that Hazura Singh never appeared before the Sub-Registrar, Mansa and, therefore, the said sale deed dated 9.6.1976 was a result of fraud and mis- representation and did not confer any title of ownership with respect to 1/20th share of the suit land in favour of the defendants. On the basis of the said sale deed, the defendants got a mutation sanctioned in their favour. They had also encroached upon the residential house and the space meant for placing the garbage. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim of ownership with respect to the suit land but they flatly refused which gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land jointly with the defendants and the sale deed dated 9.6.1976 allegedly executed by said Hazura Singh was illegal, null and void without consideration and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly entering in the possession of the suit land and from alienating the same in any manner, raising any construction thereon and also from R.S.A. No. 2352 of 2007 -3- demolishing the mud-house erected by his father, Hazura Singh, was also sought. The averments made in the plaint were controverted by the defendants by filing written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that they had demolished the kacha house and constructed a new one in place of the same. It was further pleaded that Hazura Singh had got the sale deed dated 7.6.1976 scribed from a scribe and got the same executed and registered in their favour on 9.6.1976 on receipt of the entire sale consideration before the concerned Sub-Registrar. According to the defendants, on execution of the sale deed, they remained in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years and that Hazura Singh never challenged the said sale deed. The suit land was sold by Hazura Singh which was an exclusive land and was not a part of the co-parcenary property. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff had no existing title in the suit land. Besides denying the other averments made in the plaint, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial Court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence held that the plaintiff was governed by Hindu Law and the suit land was a joint Hindu family coparcenary property. The trial court further held that Hazura Singh executed the sale deed for better management of his land by getting the same redeemed from the mortgagees and the redemption of his land from mortgages was a legal necessity. Accordingly, as a sequel to the findings on various issues, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding the same to R.S.A. No. 2352 of 2007 -4- be time barred also. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate Court which, vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2006 dismissed the appeal holding the same to be without any merit. Hence, the present regular second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made valiant efforts to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, but he failed to show any illegality or perversity therein warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. The trial court had recorded a finding of fact that the suit of the plaintiff was time barred as the sale deed in question was executed in the year 1976 whereas the suit challenging the same was filed in the year 1993, i.e. after a period of 17 years. Further, it was observed by the trial court that Hazura Singh sold his 1/20th share of the suit land to the defendants vide the sale deed dated 7.6.1976 registered on 9.6.1976 for legal necessity. The aforesaid findings of the trial court were affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. No question of law much less the substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of what has been stated above, the present appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. May 8, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE