R.S.A No. 1110 of 2010 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1110 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : March 23, 2010 Smt. Kiran Bala, ...... Appellant (s) v. Manmohan Singh and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Vinod.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rahul Chhatwal, Advocate for the caveator(s). *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (since deceased through L.Rs-respondents No.1 to 4) for declaration that she continued to be the owner of the disputed land (having purchased the same in the year 1975) and that the subsequent purchase thereof by the appellant in the year 2000 would have no effect on her right. The appellant claimed protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. R.S.A No. 1110 of 2010 (O&M) ::2:: The following questions of law have been proposed :- “ i) Whether the bona fide purchaser who exercised due care and caution is entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act ? ii) Whether the knowing party would necessarily imply knowledge about the property ? iii) Whether the evidence has been misread and the assumptions are ill-founded ? iv) Whether the averments/evidence, which are read in a piece-meal manner, are liable to be rejected and they have to be read as a whole ? v) Whether the reasonable care and caution is sufficient for the purposes of availing the benefit under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has argued that once it was proved that the land continued in the name of the vendor of the plaintiff and that after the death of such vendor, the mutation was sanctioned in favour of her son and that continued for 25 years, it clearly shows that the appellant had purchased it in good faith and that in fact the plaintiff was guilty of projecting her vendor as an ostensible owner. Both the Courts below have primarily relied upon the fact that the witness of the appellant had himself admitted that in fact the plaintiff had been in possession of the land throughout. Both the Courts have drawn adverse inference against the appellant on the ground that even though the appellant claimed to have purchased the property for value, yet she did not R.S.A No. 1110 of 2010 (O&M) ::3:: take the possession at the time the sale deed was registered. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 23, 2010. JUDGE `kk'