Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1539 (PNJ)

Mukhtiar Lal v. Rattan Chand

2003-11-12

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The plaintiff is in second appeal. 2. A suit for possession of the house in dispute was filed by Thakur Dass, plaintiff (since dead-now represented by his legal representatives). He claimed that he was the owner of the house in dispute having purchased the same through a conveyance deed dated January 19, 1995 from the Rehabilitation Department. Defendant Rattan Chand was stated to be the son-in-law of the real brother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff averred that aforesaid Rattan Singh contacted the plaintiff for taking the house in question on rent and accordingly the plaintiff agreed to lease out the same to the defendant at the rate of Rs. 25 per month. According to the plaintiff, on January 2, 1964 a lease deed was executed for a period of two years with regard to the aforesaid house. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant had been paying the rent of Rs. 25/- per month regularly till the year 1978 when the aforesaid Rattan Singh, defendant started proclaiming that he was the owner of the house. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that on January 2, 1964 defendant Rattan Singh had fraudulently got the sale deed executed of the house in question in his own favour. The plaintiff further averred that a fraud had been played upon him and as such the said sale deed dated January 2, 1964 was null and void and based upon fraud and misrepresentation and as such not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he filed a suit for possession, as aforesaid. 3. The defendant appeared and filed a written statement. He contested the claim of the plaintiff. He reiterated that he had become owner of the property in dispute through a registered sale deed dated January 2, 1964 duly executed by the plaintiff in his favour. It was asserted by the defendant that no fraud had even been played by the defendant upon the plaintiff. Actually at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in dispute was in a damaged condition and he had renovated the same after carrying out extensive repairs by spending huge amount. All other averments made by the plaintiff were specifically denied by the defendant. 4. Actually at the time of execution of the sale deed, the house in dispute was in a damaged condition and he had renovated the same after carrying out extensive repairs by spending huge amount. All other averments made by the plaintiff were specifically denied by the defendant. 4. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, held that the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property through a conveyance deed dated January 19, 1955 executed by the Rehabilitation Department in his favour. It was further held that, it was the plaintiff who himself had executed the, registered sale deed dated January 2, 1964 in favour of defendant Rattan Singh and part of the consideration was also paid before the Sub Registrar. On the basis of recital contained in the sale deed as well as on the basis of the statement of the attesting witnesses and other witnesses, it was held that the sale deed dated January 2, 1964 was validly executed by Thakur Dass, plaintiff in favour of Rattan Chand defendant and the pleas of fraud, mis-representation and undue influence, as claimed by the plaintiff, were negatived. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 5. The matter was taken up in appeal by the plaintiff. The learned first appellate Court re-appraised the entire evidence and on the basis of such re-appraisal also came to the similar conclusions as were arrived at by the learned trial Court. The learned first appellate Court also held that there was absolutely no basis to hold that the sale deed dated January 2, 1964 suffered from any infirmity or was based upon fraud etc., as claimed by the plaintiff. On the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned first appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff has now chosen to file the present regular second appeal challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned Courts below. 7. I have heard Shri Avinash Chander Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. 6. The plaintiff has now chosen to file the present regular second appeal challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the learned Courts below. 7. I have heard Shri Avinash Chander Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. Shri Avinash Chander Jain has primarily argued that in fact no proper opportunity to argue the matter was granted to the appellant inasmuch as when the matter was fixed before the learned trial appellate Court, then a request was made on behalf of the present appellant Mukhtiar Lal to the effect that his counsel was not available and an adjournment had been requested. According to Shri Jain, the aforesaid request of the appellant was not accepted by the learned first appellate Court and as a result thereto a great prejudice has been caused to the appellant and the case should be remanded back to the learned first appellate Court for decision afresh. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. In my considered opinion, there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the judgment of the learned first appellate Court shows that it had discussed the entire evidence in detail and it was only thereafter that the findings had been given independent, A further perusal of the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Court also does not show that any prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the appellant. The learned first appellate Court while re-appraising the evidence led by the parties has also taken into consideration the case of the plaintiff appellant and it was only thereafter that the appeal was decided on merits. 11. Even during the course of the present regular second appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any mis-reading of evidence or any other error in the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court to justify that any prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are findings of fact which are not shown to be erroneous in any manner. 12. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present case. 13. Findings recorded by the learned first appellate Court are findings of fact which are not shown to be erroneous in any manner. 12. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises in the present case. 13. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.