Regular Second Appeal No. 2983 of 2009 & -1- Cross Objections No. 3-C of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2983 of 2009 & Cross Objections No. 3-C of 2010 Date of decision : February 25, 2011 Smt. Paramjit Kaur and another ....Appellants versus Gurbax Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. VK Sandhir, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs no. 2 and 3, who are also legal heirs of their mother Mohinder Kaur plaintiff no.1 since deceased, have filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Bakhshish Singh was owner of the suit land measuring 7 kanals 15 marlas. He died on 27.12.1988 leaving behind plaintiff no. 1 as widow and plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 as daughters as his natural heirs. The plaintiffs alleged that they have inherited the suit land and have become its owners but the defendants dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land a few months before the filing of the suit on the pretext that Bakhshish Singh had Regular Second Appeal No. 2983 of 2009 & -2- Cross Objections No. 3-C of 2010 executed three sale deeds dated 16.8.1985 regarding the suit land in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 and their brother Shabeg Singh since deceased and represented by defendants no. 3 to 6, but in fact, no such sale deeds were executed by Bakhshish Singh. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought possession of the suit land along with declaration that the aforesaid sale deeds are null and void and without consideration. The defendants controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that Bakhshish Singh himself executed sale deeds and they are owners in possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 19.3.2007 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 3.6.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs no. 2 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that fingerprint expert examined by the plaintiffs has stated that the impugned sale deeds do not bear the thumb impressions of Bakhshish Singh and therefore, it is established that the sale deeds were not executed by Bakhshish Singh. The contention cannot be accepted. Defendants have also examined handwriting and fingerprint expert who has stated that the impugned sale deeds bear thumb impressions as well as signatures of Bakhshish Singh as found on comparison with his standard thumb impressions and signatures. Regular Second Appeal No. 2983 of 2009 & -3- Cross Objections No. 3-C of 2010 Expert examined by the plaintiffs did not compare the signatures of Bakhshish Singh on the impugned sale deeds with the standard signatures. In addition to the aforesaid, statement of plaintiff no. 3 Harbhajan Kaur as PW1 completely demolishes the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that they were dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants only a few months before filing of the suit. However, plaintiff no. 3 admitted in the witness box that possession of the suit land was with the purchasers i.e. defendants and they had taken possession of the suit land during the life time of Bakhshish Singh. This significant admission made by plaintiff no. 3 not only falsifies the version of the plaintiffs but also proves the version of the defendants that they had purchased the suit land from Bakhshish Singh vide sale deeds dated 16.8.1985. The very fact that the defendants as purchasers took possession of the suit land from Bakhshish Singh would imply and prove that Bakhshish Singh had executed aforesaid sale deeds. Even otherwise, there is no reason why Bakhshish Singh would not have taken any step regarding his dispossession from the suit land by the defendants if Bakhshish Singh had not sold the suit land to defendants. Bakhshish Singh remained alive for more than three years four months after the execution of the sale deeds. However, he never challenged the sale deeds nor took any step regarding possession of the defendants over the suit land. Even plaintiffs filed the instant suit on 18.10.1997 i.e. almost 9 years after the death of Bakhshish Singh. If Bakhshish Singh had not executed sale deeds, plaintiffs would not have remained silent for almost 9 years after the death of Bakhshish Singh to Regular Second Appeal No. 2983 of 2009 & -4- Cross Objections No. 3-C of 2010 seek possession of the suit land from the defendants. It would also not be out of place to notice with significance that even mutations on the basis of sale deeds were sanctioned in December, 1985. Bakhshish Singh remained alive for three years thereafter but he also did not challenge the mutations. Neither Bakhshish Singh nor plaintiffs could have remained ignorant of the sale deeds when defendants had taken possession of the suit land pursuant to the sale deeds. However, sale deeds remained unchallenged for more than 12 years again lending credence and strength to the genuineness of the sale deeds. Not only that, plaintiff no. 3 in the witness box stated that marriage of plaintiff no. 2 was performed after execution of the sale deeds in the year 1985. Plaintiff no. 3 also stated that she did not serve any notice on the purchasers after execution of the sale deeds by Bakhshish Singh. She also stated that plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 also did not serve any notice on the purchasers after execution of the sale deeds by Bakhshish Singh. Thus, plaintiff no. 3 has in so many words admitted the execution of the impugned sale deeds by Bakhshish Singh. Plaintiff no. 3 also stated that she did not take any action against execution of the sale deeds because her husband had died. She also stated that she learnt of the execution of the sale deeds when the same were being registered. It may also be noticed that fingerprint expert examined by the plaintiffs has reported that disputed thumb impressions Q1, Q4 and Q6 do not have clear ridge details and are not comparable. The said expert only examined other disputed thumb impressions Q2, Q3 and Q5 only. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that the plaintiffs have Regular Second Appeal No. 2983 of 2009 & -5- Cross Objections No. 3-C of 2010 miserably failed to establish that the impugned sale deeds were not executed by Bakhshish Singh. On the contrary, plaintiff no. 3 herself admitted execution of the sale deeds by Bakhshish Singh. This fact is also amply clear from other circumstances which have come on record as discussed hereinbefore. Consequently, concurrent finding recorded by the courts below non-suiting the plaintiffs does not warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding is not shown to be illegal or perverse nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The said finding is justified by the evidence on record and is supported by reasons recorded by the courts below. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. In view thereof, cross-objections preferred by the respondents are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as prayed by counsel for the respondents/cross-objectors. ( L.N. Mittal ) February 25, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'