IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6133-C of 2009 in RSA NO.2056 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 11.08.2009 Anguri Devi ...Appellant versus Shish Ram ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit of the appellant. The brief facts are that on 08.09.1976 first a lease deed was created in favour of Kunwar Lal and thereafter on the same date a sale deed was executed in favour of his brother Shish Ram. Subsequently Kunwar Lal also executed a Will of the same land in favour of his brother Shish Ram. The appellant filed the suit claiming that she was legally wedded wife of Kunwar Lal; that in fact the sale deed was sham document; and that in fact the Will in favour of Shish Ram was a forged and fabricated document and that she was thus entitled to inherit the lease-hold rights of her husband. Learned counsel has proposed the following questions: i) Whether a couple living together as husband and wife and all the official documents prepared in the natural course of business like voter identity card, RSA No.2056 of 2009 -2- ration card, school leaving certificate and affidavit prepared long before the cause of action declaring the performing of Karewa Marriage are there, still they be not treated as husband and wife? ii)Whether a person having no interest or charge over a property can execute a will in that regard? iii)Whether a legal document i.e. Lease deed registered can be subsequently treated as a sham and bogus document, when it is admitted to have been executed? iv)Whether any right occurred to the legal heir of the person having lease of a property in his favour has any right of succession to the same? The question (i) & (ii) do not arise and need no answer. Learned counsel has argued only question No.(iii) because that is the sheet anchor of his case. If the lease deed is the real document and the sale deed is sham document then the other questions may arise but if the sale deed was the real document and the lease deed was not determinant of this transaction then the appeal of the appellant has to be dismissed. In this connection, the explanation given by the respondent for the execution of two documents on the same date was that the prior lease was created only to avoid attempts at pre-emption of the sale. RSA No.2056 of 2009 -3- I asked the learned counsel for the appellant that if the lease deed was the real document then what was the reason for Shish Ram to purchase the land. Learned counsel has fairly admitted that there is no explanation forthcoming. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the findings of the fact recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court that the real transaction was of the sale and only to avoid the chances of pre-emption the prior lease deed was created in favour of the brother Shish Ram. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. August 11, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE