R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:July 10, 2009 Sarabjit Kaur ---Appellant versus Malook Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. Kuldeep V.Singh,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff – Malook Singh filed a suit for possession of the house in dispute by challenging sale deed No. 2588 dated 28.2.1997 executed by Mukhtiar Kaur in favour of defendant No. 1 on the ground that the same was the result of fraud, misrepresentation. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sardulgarh, vide judgment and decree dated 23.4.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Mansa vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.2009. Hence the present appeal by the defendant. The case of the parties as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “Brief facts of the case of plaintiff are that the house in dispute R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) {2} measuring 52' X 30' (0.6 marlas) fully detailed in the head noter of the plaint situated in the area of Sardulgarh, was owned by Narain Singh son of Maingal Singh, the father of the plaintiff Mukhtiar Kaur mother of the plaintiff was previously married to Babu Singh. Mukhtiar Kaur contracted second marriage with Narain Singh who was the cousin brother of Babu Singh. Out of the wedlock of Mukhtiar Kaur and Narain Singh, the plaintiff was born. After the death of Narain Singh, plaintiff along with his mother Mukhtiar Kaur became owners in possession of the suit house in equal share. After the death of Mukhtiar Kaur, the plaintiff has become owner in possession of ½ share of Mukhtiar Kaur in the suit house. In this way, he has become owner of the entire house. The sale deed No. 2558 dated 28.2.1997 executed in favour of defendant No. 1 is null and void and result of fraud, misrepresentation and is without consideration. It is liable to be set-aside on the ground that Mukhtiar Kaur was an illiterate lady. She was deceived on the pretext that loan for the purchase of buffaloes was to be obtained and the sale deed was got executed from her. No amount of the sale price was ever paid to her by defendant Sarabjit Kaur. Mukhtiar Kaur had already given share to defendant Rattan Singh and he had no share in the suit house. Narain Singh had raised construction of the house during his life time, but in the sale deed, the house has been shown as vacant plot. Mukhtiar Kaur was owner of ½ share in the house in dispute and she was not entitled to execute the sale deed of R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) {3} the entire house. The plaintiff is the owner of the entire house. He is in possession of half portion situated on the Eastern side. The portion situated on the Western side has been possessed by the defendants. The defendants are out to alienate said house and to raise construction thereon. Defendant No. 1 had earlier filed suit for p[ossession of half share, but she withdrew the same on 7.11.2000. Hence, this suit. Notice of the suit was served upon the defendants, who appeared through their counsel and contested the suit by filing written statement, in which, they took the preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the suit, that he was not affixed sufficient court fee on the plaint; that the suit has been filed to harass the defendants. On merits, it is stated that Narain Singh had no concern with the suit house father Mukhtiar Kaur was the owner in possession of the entire house. It is admitted that Mukhtiar Kaur was previously married to Babu Singh, father of defendant Rattan Singh and after the death of Babu Singh she contracted marriage with Narain Singh, father of the plaintiff. Itr is stated that during her lifetime, Mukhtiar Kaur alienated the house in favour of defendant No. 1 vide sale deed dated 27.2.1997 registered on 28.2.1997 and after purchasing the same, defendant No. 1 has raised construction of the residential house over the purchased land. She also got fitted electricity and obtained electricity connection, telephone connection, etc. The plaintiff has no concern with the house in dispute. It is R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) {4} denied that the sale deed is without consideration or result of fraud and misrepresentation, rather Mukhtiar Kaur executed the same with her sound disposing mind and free will and received the sale consideration from defendant No. 1. Ultimately, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP (2)Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD (3.A)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of ½ share of the suit property as prayed for ? OPP (3.B) Whether the sale deed No. 2558 dated 28.2.1997 is illegal, null and void and result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPP (3-C) Whether the insufficient court fee has been affixed by the plaintiff, if so, its effect ? OPD (4) Relief.” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Both the courts below after going through the evidence on record had held that the appellant-Sarabjit Kaur had admitted in her cross- examination that property in dispute was owned by Narain Singh-husband of Mukhtiar Kaur. Admittedly, Mukhtiar Kaur was married with Babu Singh, father-in-law of appellant-Sarabjit Kaur. Out of the said wedlock, Rattan Singh, husband of appellant-Sarabjit Kaur was born. After the death R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) {5} of Babu Singh, Mukhtiar Kaur was got married to Narain Singh and out of their wedlock, Malook Singh-plaintiff was born. It has also been observed by learned District Judge that Narain Singh was owning only one house and the appellant while appearing in the witness box as DW-1 had admitted that house in dispute was owned by Narain Singh. It has further been observed that Narain Singh died on 28.8.1994. After his death the house in dispute was inherited by his widow-Mukhtiar Kaur and son Malook Singh in equal share. Mukhtiar Kaur died on 19.7.2000. Appellant had pleaded that she was owner of the house in dispute in view of the sale eed executed on 27.9.1997 registered on 28.2.1997(Ex. P-7)by Mukhtiar Kaur. In view of this sale deed, appellant was the exclusive owner of the vacant plot and thereafter she has raised construction on the said plot. Learned District Judge has observed that the appellant had failed to lead any evidence to the effect that the house in dispute was constructed by her.However, Mukhtiar Kaur was not competent to sell the entire house in dispute as she was owner of the same to the extent of ½ share. It has also been observed by District Judge that a complaint was filed by Malook Singh before the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa and after inquiring into the matter, it was reported that the sale deed in question was a result of fraud, misrepresentation and fabrication because thumb impression of Mukhtiar Kaur was obtained by Sarabjit Kaur and Rattan Singh on the pretext of enabling her to get a loan for the purchase of buffalos. Sarabjit Kaur and Rattan Singh refused to make any statement before the Tehsildar on being summoned. Sarabjit Kaur had filed suit for possession against Malook Singh with regard to the house in dispute but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, it was held that the sale deed R.S.A.No. 2517 of 2009(O&M) {6} in question was a result of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out that the observations made by learned District Judge are contrary to record. Thus, the courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 10, 2009 PARAMJIT