R.S.A. No.1480 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.1480 of 2008 Date of Decision:15.10.2008 Naurang Singh and others .....Appellants Vs. Teja Singh .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. **** HARBANS LAL, J. The facts giving rise to this suit are that Hamir Singh, grandfather of plaintiff was owner of the suit property. His sons were Dulla Singh and Saudagar Singh. After his death, the disputed property fell to the share of Dulla Singh, father of the plaintiff. Dulla Singh breathed his last about 40 years back. The plaintiff came into possession of the property in dispute. Since then, he is in continuous and peaceful possession of the same. He has raised construction. The defendants being inimically disposed of towards the plaintiff are threatening to grab his property. He requested them to desist from doing so and to admit his claim, but of no avail. On these allegations, this suit has been filed for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of the premises shown in red colour by letters marked as `ABCD' in the site plan and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his lawful possession and from ejecting him forcibly. In their joint written statement, the defendants No.1 and 2 have inter-alia pleaded that the plaintiff has withheld the material facts from the Court regarding Civil Suit No.205 of 16.7.1997, Civil Suit No.198 of R.S.A. No.1480 of 2008 -2- 4/1996. As alleged, previously one Jeet Singh son of Natha Singh was the owner in possession of the land who has sold it to Phoola Singh son of Naurang Singh, defendant. That in fact, the defendants No.2, 3 and father of defendant No.1 were owners in possession of the suit land. Later on, the defendant No.3 became owner in possession of the same. While transversing other facts in the plaint, it has been prayed that the suit may be dismissed. In his written statement, defendant No.3 has alleged that previous owner, Jeet Singh had sold the disputed property to the answering defendant vide sale deed dated 24.12.1996 and since then he is the owner in possession of the same. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether plaintiff being owner in possession is entitled for relief of declaration? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction? OPP 3. Whether defendant has become the owner of the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed dated 24.12.96? OPD 4. Whether the site plan of the plaintiff is wrong? OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the court regarding previous litigation? OPD 7. Relief. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Moga decreed the suit, vide her judgment/ decree dated 1.9.2007. Feeling R.S.A. No.1480 of 2008 -3- aggrieved therewith, the defendants went in appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Moga vide his judgment/ decree dated 16.1.2008. Being undaunted and dissatisfied therewith, the defendants have preferred this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and circumspection. Mr. O.P. Hoshiarpuri, learned counsel for the appellants urged with a good deal of force that merely because the disputed property being gair mumkin plot does not bear any khasra number would not in any way dispense with the proof of title and possession over the site in dispute. The receipts Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6 with respect to payment of chulla tax does not in any manner advance the cause of the plaintiff- respondent particularly when the same does not pertain to the disputed site. The Courts below have laid much emphasis on the report of the Local Commissioner who was appointed as such in Civil Suit No.198 but the same being in other case could not be looked into evidence in the present one. He further argued that Phoola Singh- appellant has become owner of the disputed site by virtue of sale deed dated 24.12.1996 though on the other hand, the plaintiff/ respondent has not adduced any evidence to the effect that this sale deed is a forged or fabricated document. The agreement to sell dated 30.12.1994 has also been brushed aside without any specific reason. To tide over these submissions, Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the Courts below have assigned sufficient reasons for holding the sale deeds Ex.D.1, D.2 and the agreement to sell Ex.D.3 to be forged and fabricated documents. R.S.A. No.1480 of 2008 -4- I have well considered the rival contentions. The case of the plaintiff is that his grand-father Hamir Singh was owner of the disputed property, which was inherited by his father Dulla Singh on whose death, he became the owner in possession. There is no gainsaying fact that the disputed property is “gair mumkin” situated within the lal lakir and it does not bear any khasra number. To substantiate his plea, the plaintiff has placed on record the receipts showing payment of chulla tax Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6. The defendant Phula Singh has made an attempt to establish his title on the basis of sale deed Ex.D.1 dated 24.12.1996 based on the sale agreement dated 30.12.1994 Ex.D.3. Allegedly, this agreement to sell as well as sale deed were attested by one Ujjagar Singh by putting his thumb impression. He has been proved to be a lier. The plaintiff has placed on record the death certificate of Bawa Singh Ex.P.8 issued by the Additional District Registrar, Birth and Death, Moga. As per the same Bawa Singh expired on 4.11.1994. As per the same, the date of his death is 10.11.1994. It implies that he passed away on 4.11.1994. By no stretch of imagination, he could attest the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1994. If it is assumed that his thumb impressions were obtained before his death on blank papers, then the execution on the alleged date is belied. More to the point, the defendant did not adduce any cogent evidence operating as rebuttal to this document. As regards Ujjagar Singh, DW1 attesting witness, it is in his cross- examination that he never remained as Numberdar of Village Khosa Pando. He further denied to have appended his thumb impressions as Numberdar on any document. The learned trial Court has assigned sufficient reasons for deciding issues No.1, 2 and 3 against defendants. To my mind, no contrary view can be taken thereto. As regards, rest of the issues, I do not R.S.A. No.1480 of 2008 -5- find any valid reason to pick holes in the findings returned thereon by the learned trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. Sequelly, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not liable to be disturbed. Besides this, no substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. October 15, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE