Regular Second Appeal No. 2265 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2265 of 2008 Date of Order: November , 2009 Smt. Kanta Devi ....Appellant Versus Municipal Committee and another ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg,Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 20.08.2004 and 14.06.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissing her suit and her appeal, respectively. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit claiming that she has purchased the suit land from Surajbhan, Budh Ram, Premsukhdas and Balbir Singh vide registered sale deed dated 30.12.1994. She submitted a site plan, to the Municipal Committee, Narnaul, which was approved vide resolution no.70, dated 25.08.1995 and she thereafter raised the foundation of a building but as the Municipal Committee, Narnaul has begun to assert its title and intends to forcibly dispossess the appellant, the suit be decreed by grant of an injunction. The Municipal Committee, Narnaul, filed a written statement claiming ownership of the suit land by asserting that the sale deed, dated Regular Second Appeal No. 2265 of 2008 -2- 30.12.1994, was executed by Naresh Kumar Sanghi, a member of the Municipal Committee, as General Power of Attorney holder of the vendors, in favour of the appellant who is his sister so as to misappropriate municipal property. Balbir Singh, one of the vendors filed a suit for declaration of his ownership against the Municipal Committee, through Naresh Kumar, his general power of attorney holder. The suit was however, dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.1995. It was further alleged that the sale deed is a paper transaction, brought into evidence by Naresh Kumar Sanghi, to fraudulently misappropriate municipal property. It was further pleaded that Balbir Singh asserts his title on the basis of a collusive decree dated 15.09.1982, which is illegal and void. With respect to the sanction of the site plan, it was asserted that the site plan was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul and the Director Local Bodies, Haryana as Balbir Singh, the appellant's vendor was not the owner. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute, on the grounds, as alleged, if so its effect?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing of the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant had failed to prove the title of her vendors. It was further held that Naresh Kumar as attorney of Balbir Singh filed a suit, which was dismissed as withdrawn. He thereafter, sold the property to his sister and Regular Second Appeal No. 2265 of 2008 -3- got her to file the present suit. As a consequence, the trial court declared that the sale deed is a paper transaction prepared by Naresh Kumar so as to grab the suit land. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 14.06.2008, the Additional District Judge, Narnaul, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Municipal Committee has not produced any document of title whereas the appellant has produced a registered sale deed in her favour. The sale deed executed in favour of the appellant could not have been rejected as a presumption of truth attaches to a registered document. It is further argued that the documents Ex.PW8/A to PW8/C and Ex.PW6/A clearly establish that the grand father of the appellant's vendors was owner of the suit land and, therefore, they had every right to execute the sale deed in her favour. It is submitted that as the Municipal Committee sanctioned the appellant's site plan, it is estopped from raising any plea against the appellant's ownership. Counsel for the appellant submits that in view of error committed by the courts below, the following questions of law arise for consideration:- “(i) Whether, after the plaintiff having proved that he made necessary enquiries regarding title of the property, the sale deed could be termed as sham transaction? (ii) Whether the resolutions passed by the Nagar Parishad could over-ride the validly executed sale deed to determine the ownership and title of the property? (iii) Whether the onus was on the defendant Nagar Parishad to prove a better title than the plaintiff regarding the suit property?” Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the suit land belongs to the Municipal Committee and is recorded as such in Regular Second Appeal No. 2265 of 2008 -4- the municipal register. One of the appellant's vendor Balbir Singh filed a suit against the Municipal Committee claiming ownership of the suit land. The suit was, however, dismissed as withdrawn. It is argued that this suit was filed by Balbir Singh through Naresh Kumar as a general power of attorney. The present sale deed has also been executed by Naresh Kumar as general power of attorney of the vendors in favour of his sister. It is, therefore, apparent that the sale deed was executed to grab municipal property. It is further pointed out that Naresh Kumar is a member of the Municipal Committee and, therefore, used his influence to get the sale deed executed. It is also submitted that the site plan sanctioned in favour of the appellant was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul and the Director, Local Bodies, Haryana as Balbir Singh etc. were not owner of the property. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments, considered the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant, but as the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any error of law and express my inability to hold that any substantial question of law much less the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant arise for consideration. The municipal register records the suit land as the ownership of the Municipal Committee. The appellant has failed to prove that her vendors were owners of the suit land by reference to any document of title. The argument that the documents Ex.PW8/A to PW8/C and Ex.PW6/A establish the ownership of her vendors is, irrelevant as the Municipal Committee was not a party to this litigation or to these documents. It appears that on account of a perceived ambiguity in the ownership of the property, Naresh Kumar, a Municipal Councilor hatched a conspiracy to grab municipal property and got Balbir Singh etc. to execute a general power of attorney in his favour. The courts below have not committed any Regular Second Appeal No. 2265 of 2008 -5- error in dismissing the suit and the appeal. He thereafter filed a suit on behalf of Balbir Singh etc. for declaration of their ownership, against the Municipal Committee. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Having withdrawn the suit, Naresh Kumar developed a novel method to appropriate the property. He executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, who is his sister. She thereafter filed an application for sanction of a building plan, to fortify her ownership. The building plan was promptly sanctioned by the Municipal Committee but before it was stayed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thwarted in his attempt to misappropriate this property, Naresh Kumar got his sister to file the present suit. Both the trial court and the first appellate court are concurrent in their opinion that in the absence of any document of title, the appellant's vendors, cannot be held to be owners in possession of the suit land and, therefore, the appellant's prayer that she is owner of the suit land and her possession should be protected cannot be accepted. The questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant do not arise for consideration as the appellant has failed to produce any document reflecting the title of her vendors. The sale deed executed in her favour was rightly held to be null and void. The onus to prove her ownership and the title of her vendors lay upon the appellant. In the absence of any evidence, in support of these pleas, the courts below rightly held against the appellant. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for adjudication, the appeal is dismissed. November , 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE