Regular Second Appeal No. 763 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 763 of 2007 Date of decision : April 07, 2011 Ravail Singh ....Appellant versus Harbans Singh and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Rajnish Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant no. 1 having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent no. 1 – plaintiff Harbans Singh filed suit against appellant – defendant no. 1 and respondents no. 2 to 4 as defendants no. 2 to 4. Case of the plaintiff is that Tara Singh (father of defendants no. 2 to 4) was owner in possession of the suit land. He sold it to Harinder Kaur and Teja Singh vide sale deeds dated 24.1.1962 and 9.2.1962. Said Harinder Kaur and Teja Singh sold the suit land to plaintiff vide two separate sale Regular Second Appeal No. 763 of 2007 -2- deeds dated 27.2.1969 and since then the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. Defendant no. 1 claimed to have purchased the suit land from defendant nos. 2 to 4 vide sale deed dated 3.9.1990 and also got mutation entered on its basis but the said sale deed and mutation are null and void. The plaintiff accordingly sought declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit land and defendants have no right, title or interest therein. Permanent injunction was also claimed. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit and claimed to be bonafide purchaser of the suit land from defendants no. 2 to 4 vide sale deed dated 3.9.1990 registered on 5.9.1990. Some other pleas were also raised. Sale deeds set up by the plaintiff were controverted. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.1999 decreed plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no. 1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that appellant is bonafide purchaser of the suit land because defendants no. 2 to 4 continued to be recorded to be owners of the suit land in the revenue record and no mutation was sanctioned either in favour of Harinder Kaur and Teja Singh or in favour of the plaintiff. The contention although very attractive on first blush is completely devoid of merit. The aforesaid stand Regular Second Appeal No. 763 of 2007 -3- of defendant no. 1 – appellant stands demolished by his own cross- examination as observed in detail by the trial court in paragraph 12 of its judgment. Even otherwise, it is apparent that defendants no. 2 to 4 vendors of defendant no. 1 were not in possession of the suit land when defendant no. 1 purchased the same from defendants no. 2 to 4. On the contrary, in jamabandi for the years 1975-76 onwards, plaintiff Harbans Singh was recorded to be in possession of the suit land as vendee. Defendant no. 1 – appellant admitted that before purchasing the suit land he had perused the revenue record. Consequently, it came to his notice that plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land as vendee thereof. In spite thereof, defendant no. 1 – appellant has the guts to plead that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit land. To wriggle out of the aforesaid situation, defendant no. 1 came out with a white lie that he had perused only ownership column of the jamabandi and had not perused column of cultivation and column of rent wherein plaintiff was recorded to be in possession of the suit land as vendee. This statement of defendant no. 1 is based on clear-cut falsehood and therefore, defendant no. 1 is liable to be prosecuted for perjury. However, at this distant stage, I am refraining from ordering prosecution of defendant no. 1. The fact, however, remains that claim of defendant no. 1 – appellant that he is bonafide purchaser of the suit land is not only unfounded and baseless but is, in fact, based on total falsehood. The concurrent finding recorded by the courts below against defendant no. 1 – appellant that he is not bonafide purchaser of the suit land Regular Second Appeal No. 763 of 2007 -4- for valuable consideration is the only finding that could be recorded on the basis of evidence on record. There is no infirmity much less illegality or perversity in the said finding. The said finding is not based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal is not only meritless but is also frivolous and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 5000/-. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 07, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'