RSA No. 2133 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2133 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.01.2011 Manga .....Appellant Versus Tanti and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: M.S.K.Chauhan,Advocate for Mr.R.M.Singh, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Jogi Ram Nain, Advocate for respondents No. 6,7,19 to 21. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deeds dated 27.5.1997 and 15.6.1997 were illegal, null and void. Plaintiff be declared owner in possession to the extent of 217/1612 share out of the land measuring 80 kanals 12 marlas. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that both the parties were owners in possession of the joint land measuring 80 kanals 12 marlas. Thereafter, 5 marlas of land was utilized for construction of roads. Plaintiff had 217/1612 share in the said land. Defendants No. 1 to 5 had purchased the land measuring 9 kanals 19 marlas from deceased Magi vide sale deed RSA No. 2133 of 2008 (O&M) 2 dated 26.5.1978 but they had got mutation sanctioned in their favour qua 14 kanals 14 marlas of land in collusion with the revenue officials. Entry in the jamabandi was also incorporated on the basis of mutation. The said entry was not binding on the plaintiff. Mutation No. 3752 was sanctioned in the absence of the plaintiff on 31.3.1998 in view of the sale deed dated 31.10.1977. The said mutation was wrongly sanctioned showing Mangi as a vendor. In fact, the land was owned by Inder and Satish legal heirs of Magi. The names of Inder and Santosh were liable to be added as vendors and land had, thus, to be sold out of their shares. On the basis of wrong mutation, defendant No.6 sold 80/1551 share out of the suit land vide sale deed dated 27.5.1997 in favour of defendants No. 19 to 21 and sold 84/1551 share to defendants No. 19 and 20 vide sale deed dated 5.1.1995. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 to 5 in their written statements averred that they had purchased 9 kanals 12 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 28.5.1978 and 14 kanals 14 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 31.10.1977 and since then, they were owners in possession of the land purchased by them. Magi had mortgaged land measuring 14 kanals 14 marlas vide mortgage deed dated 31.10.1977 in favour of Dariya, Hukam Chand and Kapoora and the land was got redeemed by them on 11.6.1982 after payment of mortgage amount. Defendants No. 6,7 12 to 18 in their written statements averred that out of 80 kanals 12 marlas of land,defendant No. 10 was owner in possession of 9 kanals and 2 marals of land; defendant No. 11 was owner in possession of 1 kanal 10 marlas of land and defendants No.13 to 18 were owners in possession of 20 kanals 3 RSA No. 2133 of 2008 (O&M) 3 marlas of land in equal shares. The share of defendant No.11 was inherited by defendants No. 13 to 18. Out of the land measuring 24 kanals 18 marlas,they were owner in possession of 6 kanals 5 marlas of land. Defendants No. 6 and 7 were owners of land measuring 6 kanals 5 marlas which was earlier owned by Narma. Defendants No. 1 to 5 had purchased land from Magi vide different sale deeds and hence, on 20.10.1986, Magi could not suffer a decree in favour of Biro and others. Defendants No. 19 to 21 in their written statements averred that defendant No.6 had sold 80/1551 share on 27.5.1997 and 84/1551 share on 5.1.1995 to them. Mutations sanctioned in their favour were legal and valid. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of 217/1612 share as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the mutation No.3752 is illegal, null and void as alleged?OPP 3.Whether the sale ded Vasika No.384 dated 27.5.97 and sale deed Vasika No. 1825 dated 5.1.95 and the consequent mutations No.4478 dated 15.6.97 and 4479 dated 15.6.97 are illegal null and void as alleged?OPP 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?OPD 5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 6.Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the RSA No. 2133 of 2008 (O&M) 4 present suit against the defendants?OPD 7.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 8.Whether the proper fees has not been filed by the plaintiff?OPD 9.Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005,the Civil Judge Junior Division, Narwana dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Jind vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record available on the file carefully. Both the sides led their evidence in respect of their pleas. Faggu was owner of 105 kanals 5 marlas of land. After his death, the land was inhereited by his four sons in equal shares. Admittedly, the land comprised of 1 khewat but later on 2 khewats were created out of the suit land. The land measuring 80 kanals 12 marlas came in 1 khewat and the said khewat is in dispute in the present case. Plaintiff has claimed 217/1612 share in the said land. Magi had sold land measuring 9 kanals 12 marlas vide sale deed dated 28.5.1978 to defendants No. 1 to 5. Magi also executed the sale deed qua 10 kanals 9 marlas of land on 24.5.1976. Magi transferred 14 kanals 4 marlas of land vide sale deed dated 31.10.1977. However, the factum of execution of the said sale deeds was not in the knowledge of his legal heirs. The legal heirs of Magi and Mangal suffered a RSA No. 2133 of 2008 (O&M) 5 decree in favour of the plaintiff on 20.10.1986. Since Magi had already sold the land before passing of the decree, the Courts below rightly held that the decree cannot invalidate the sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants. The entries qua the sale deeds in the revenue record were not immediately incorporated and were incorporated later on. Plaintiff suffered a decree in favour of defendants No. 6 to 9 and transferred 320 marlas of land in favour of defendants No. 8 and 9 while he transferred 480 marlas of land in favour of defendants No. 6 and 7 and kept 217 marlas of land in his own name. Mutation in this regard was sanctioned on 23.1.1988. Since the plaintiff had transferred his share by suffering a decree then defendants No. 6 to 9 are liable to be considered as co-owners in possession with the plaintiffs. Inder son of Magi also sold some land from the joint khewat in favour of Hans Raj and others vide sale deed dated 27.5.1997. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 14, 2011 arya