74 1 SANo2 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COUIU OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSAN02 of 1988 Date ofdecision IS 92Ol l 1 0 Bachan Singhand others 0 I C5 Appellants I versus Z 0 BhajanSinghand others I C Z I4 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE KCPURI rn 41 7 Z Present 1 Mr MSarin Senior Advocate with Qm Mr DivyaSodhi Advocate for the appellants None for respondents ICCPURI J Bachan Singhand other have directed the present regularsecond appealagainstthe judgmentand decree dated 265 1987 passedby Mr ABingh Wasu Additional District Judge Amritsarvide which the appealpreferred bythem againstthejudgment and . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 75 SAN02 of 1988 2 1 decree dated 201987 passedby Shri NSSaini Senior Sub Judge Amritsarwas dismissed 2 The case of the plaintiHsin brief is that Sadhu Singhson of TejaSinghwas the owner of the suit land He had the SUit for a sum of RsA5001 with Tara Singhfather 1 of the defendantsvide mortgagedeed dated 30 1970 Later on said 0 SadhuSinghsold the land in disputealongwith some other erty for 0 I Rs73061 vide sale deed executed on 821973 wherein the mortgage 0 I amount was dulyadjusted in the sale priceDue to certain reasons the of the sale deed could not take placeon the day of execution Z while it becamea matter of disputewhich was finallydecided bytheRegistrarAmritsar in favour ofthe plaintiffs on 1991975 and as a result of which the registration of the documenttook placeon 10101975 r Z In this it was furtheraverredin the plaintthatdespite the said oo pendingdisputeof the defendants got another sale deed 2 Z executed collusivelyfrom said Sadhu Singhon 14 11973 because of t1 which the same was ineffective qua the rightsof the plaintiffsand therefore the presentsuit for hasbeenfiled 3 On put to notice he defendants on the other hand admitted the factum of mortgagebut controvertedthe claim of the plaintiffsand set up a bonaefide transaction of sale in their favour besides raisinglegal objectionsof limitation jurisdiction and res judicat They ultimatelyprayedfor dismissal of the SUit of the plaintiffswith costs . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 76 RSANo2 of 1988 3 4 Plaintiffs filed replication and theydenied all the averments of thewritten statementsand reiteratedtheir standtaken in theplaint 5 From the pleadingsof the partiesfollowingissues were framed 1 Whether the plaintiffis entitled to redeem the land and to getits possession20PP 2 Whether thepresentsuit is barredbylimitation20PD r 3 Whether the suit is maintainablein the present 0 fonn2OPD U I 4 Whether the sale deeddated81973 is void illegaland C5 not binding on the defendants20PD I 44 Whether defendants are bona6depurchasers of suit property for consideration2OPD Z 54 5 Whether the suit for is not maintailiablein f view ofthe fact thatthe mutationofthe land hasbeen 1 reised to enter in the name ofthe plaintiffs20PD I 6 Whether the civil court hasno jurisdiction to try this suit 20PD Z 7 Whether the suit is hit bybyres judicata70PD C 8 Relief V2 Z 6 The partieshave led their respective evidence on the aforesaid Om issues 7 The trial Court aRer hearingleamed counsel for thepartiesand appraisalof the evidence decreed the SUit of the plaintiffwith costs vide judgment and decreedated2011987 8 Feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated201987 the defendantspreferred appealbefore the First Appellate Court The First AppellateCourt vide its judgmentand decree dated 265987 dismissed theappeal . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 77 1 RSA No2 of 1988 4 9 Feelingdissatis6ed with the aforesaid and decrees dated 20 1987 and 2651987 passedby both the Courts below the have directedthepresentregularsecondappealbefore this Courte 10 The leamed senior counsel for the has submiued the 1 0 followingsubstantialquestions of law havearisen in the presentappealfor 0 detennination 0 I 1 Whether the Courts below erred in relyingupon the order C5 passedbythe Registrar and Sub Registrarwhen the same werenot produced on the record2 I 2 Whether theLower Appellate Court erred in law in not Z returning a 6ndingon whethertheappellants were bonaflde 3 Whether the sale in favour ofthe appellants is protected I by Section41 ofthe TransferofProperty Act2 4 Whether and decreespassedbythe Courts Z below are perverseandhenceliable to be set aside7 m 11 I have heardleamed Senior counsel for theappellants and have 7 gonethrough the records of the case with his able assistance Z Qm I2 Learnedcounsel for the has submittedthat both the Courts below have erred in relyingupon the order passedbythe Registrar and Sub Registrarmore so when the same has not been produced on the tlle The Courts beiow should havertumed a findingthat appellants are bonafide for valuabie consideration on account of sale deed dated14111973 executedby Sadhu Singhin their favour The sale in favour of the is protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Act The and decreespassedby both the Couns below areperversein as much as therightofthe in respectofregistered l . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 78 RSANo2 of 1988 5 saledeeddated 14111973 hasnot been considered The plaintiffshave no legalrightto get the propertyredeemedas the sale deed in their favour 1S afterthe executionofthe saledeedin favour ofthe 13 The learned counsel for the has submittedthat the First AppellateCourt is bound to return issueNise flndings The First 1 AppellateCourt has not given 1SSUWlSe flndings So in view of the 0 authorities Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vse Smte 0 I Asmathunnisa and others 2001 Puniab Law Reporter Paee 234 C5 I SmteHariit Grewal and others vse DreVinod Kumar Batra and others 2010 Puniab Law Reporter paee 235 and Santosh Hazari VSe Z Purushottam Tiwari OeceasedlBy LRS 200131 Supreme Court C 1 Cases PaPe 179 the presentappealis liable to be remandedbefore the I First AppellateCourt to giveissuewise finding Z 14 It is further submittedthat lnctioning of the First 00 AppellateCourt may give rise to substantial questionof law The m7 Z judgment and decreeofthe First Appellate Court must displaceconscious Qm application of the mind and record 6ndingsupported by the reasonson all the contentionand issues The First AppellateCourt has not decided the issue of bona fide and as suchthe case is liable to be remanded back to the First Appellate Court for decidingthat 1SSue 15 I have carefullyconsidered the said submission but do not flnd any force in that submission 16 The counsel for the is fair enoughto concede that sale deed in favour of the plaintiffdated 831973 would prevailover the sale deed dated 141 11973 in favour of the . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 79 RSANo2 of 1988 6 the earlier sale deed was on 1010 1975 aer the sale deedin favour ofthe defendantseHowever it is submittedthat there were no reference of the sale deed in favour of plaintiffsand as such the defendantsare thebonafide for valuable considerationand their rights are protected under Section41 ofthe TransferofPropenyAct 1 17 The learnedtrial Court has elaborately dealt in this aspectof 0 the case On the strength of authoritiesBasant Lal vse Bala Misra AIl 0 I India Reporter 1958 Patna 312 and State of West Bengal VSe C5 NCeKundu All India Reporter 1978 Cale 347 thetrial Court held that I dateof execution of a documentof transfershall relate back to the date of Z its execution and not the dateof From the endorsementmade 2 1Z on the back side of sale deed ExAl it is revealed that the same w7as I for on 761973 and the Sub Registrarre61sedthe Z registrationon 277 1973 and the requestfor was allowed on 198 175 by the Registrar So in case the defendantshad made little e inquiryOom the office of Sub Registrarit would have been revealedthat Z the sale deed dated 821973 in favour of the plaintiffhas alreadybeen pending for before the competentauthority So in these circumstancestheappellant could not takethepleaofbona fide Anysale duringthe pendencyof before Sub Registrar cannot be held to be a bona Ode sale Since the sale deed ltl favour of the defendantsdoesnot confer any legalrightupon them as such theyhave no rightfor The SUit for by the plaintiffhas been rightlydecreedbyboth the Courtsbelow . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 80 4 6 RSAN02 of 1988 7 18 The otherargumentadvancedby the leamed counsel for the that since the First Appellate Court has not decided the issue of bonatlde necessity and as such the case be remandedin view ofauthorities Karnataka State Road Transoort Corporations SmteHariit Grewal and others case and Santosh Hazaris case ipraleThat submissionis 1 0 meritless The first Appellate Court has to decide thepointarguedbefore 0 lte Anypointnot speciflcallyarguedbeforethe First Appellate Coun need 0 notto be decided bythe First Appellate Court The main stresslaid before C5 I the First Appellate Court was that since the mutation has not followed the saledeed dated 81973 and the plaintiffhaspurchased throughsale deed Z dated 8 11973 and knowingthat the sale deed in favour ofthe C4 plaintiff is document the of the documenthas I C beendealt in paraNo of thejudgmentIt has been rightlyobserved that Z sale deed will relate to the date of its execution and not its rll Mutation could not be attestedin favour of theplaintiffas the matter was eeo Z suljudicebefore the competentauthority for ofthe sale deed 0 So in thesecircumstancestheappellants cannot derivebenet ofthe above said authorities 19 So tn view of the above discussion all the substantial questionsof law raised by f1 Z stand detennined againstthem 20 the appealis without any merit and the same standsdismissedwith costs . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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 81 1 Of 1988 20 8 A COpy Of tlzis bent lhe IaI Court for Strict I4e4 Sv I5 10 3 2011 1 6 0 9 Cb3 Z4 O e r12 tr 4r r 0 1 4r C42 r 5 . Anita 2012.05.30 11: 15 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