Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1275 (PNJ)

Hardev Singh v. Prem Pal

2009-07-30

HEMANT GUPTA

body2009
JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). - Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff that he is owner in possession of the suit property measuring 3 marlas bearing Khasra No. 4346/1881 along with construction raised thereon, was decreed. 2. One Gurbachan Singh was the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from Amrik Singh; Surjit Singh and Avtar Singh vide sale deed dated 14.3.1996 for a consideration of Rs.80,000/-. The aforesaid Amrik Singh; Surjit Singh and Avtar Singh, purchased the property in dispute from Gurbachan Singh vide sale deed dated 20.1.1977. Gurbachan Singh died on 30.10.1987, leaving behind defendant No.1 Kaushalya Devi as his sole heir. As per the entries in the revenue record, the land in dispute continued in the name of Gurbachan Singh and after his death, in favour of his wife Kaushalya Devi. Kaushalya Devi executed sale deed in respect of the property in dispute in favour of defendant No.2 on 12.4.1996. Since the said defendant was claiming right over the suit property by virtue of the subsequent sale deed, the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration, which has been decreed by both the Courts below. 3. The stand of defendant No.1 was that Gurbachan Singh remained in possession of the suit property till his death and thereafter, his wife-Kaushalya Devi came in possession as owner. She is one, who is making payment of the house tax in the capacity of owner. She denied the factum of sale by deceased Gurbachan Singh with regard to the suit property in favour of Amrik Singh etc. However, it was stated that she has sold the property in favour of defendant No.2. In separate written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.2, it was pleaded that defendant No.1 was the owner and in possession of the suit property after the death of Gurbachan Singh and thus, defendant No.1, is reflected as owner in the Municipal record. It was denied that Gurbachan Singh sold the land in favour of the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest. The sale deeds were said to be ineffective qua the rights of the defendants. It was pleaded that he was bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration. 4. It was denied that Gurbachan Singh sold the land in favour of the plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest. The sale deeds were said to be ineffective qua the rights of the defendants. It was pleaded that he was bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration. 4. The plaintiff appeared as his own witness and produced copy of the sale deeds dated 20.1.1977 as Exhibit P.1 and 14.3.1996 as Exhibit P.2. The learned trial Court has found that factum of possession of Khasra numbers and boundaries also mentioned in the sale deed, which tally with each other. 5. On the other hand, defendant No.2 appeared as DW1 and has produced sale deed Exhibit D.1, but it was found that since Gurbachan Singh already sold the land during his lifetime, therefore Kaushalya Devi was not having any right, title or interest in the suit property and sanction of mutation does not confer any title in her favour. It has been further found that sanction of mutation in the revenue record does not help the stand of the defendants as the property was already within the municipal limits. On the basis of such findings recorded, the learned trial Court decreed the suit. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court were affirmed in appeal. 6. Before this Court, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued that the original sale deed dated 20.1.1977 was not produced in evidence before the trial Court and that a copy attested by the Notary Public will not prove title of the vendor of the plaintiff, which may justify the decree in his favour. It is also contended that the boundaries of the property in the sale deed in favour of Amrik Singh etc. and that of subsequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff have not been sufficiently correlated so as to relate to the property in dispute. It is also argued that the defendant-appellant has also purchased the property on the basis of entries in revenue record, which reflect Gurbachan Singh as owner and after his death Kaushalya Devi. Therefore, the defendants are bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration. 7. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Therefore, the defendants are bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration. 7. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The plaintiff has tendered his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit dated 27.1.2003 Exhibit PW1/A. He has deposed in the said affidavit that the original sale deed dated 20.1.1977 was scribed by Ajit Singh, deed writer and attested by Lal Chand, MC, Nawanshahr and Jagan Nath son of Chandi Ram. Both the witnesses and the deed writer have expired. The original sale deed is the notarised copy of the sale deed, the original of which he has brought in Court. Similarly, he has produced the original sale deed dated 14.3.1996, scribed by Balwant Rai, deed writer and attested by Vijay Kumar. The notarised copy of the sale deed dated 14.3.1996 was produced in evidence. The said witness was cross-examined on 29.10.2004. There was not a question asked from the plaintiff in respect of non production of the original sale deed at the time of cross-examination. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the original sale deed was brought by the plaintiff in Court, but it was not disputed by the defendants, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is not tenable. 9. The argument that the boundaries in the sale deed Exhibit P.1 and P.2 are not proved to be tallying with the property in dispute, is again misconceived. The trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that the factum of possession, khasra number along with boundaries has been mentioned in the sale deeds, which tally with each other. It is not the case of the defendant-appellant that Gurbachan Singh was the owner of any other property, except the property in dispute. The identity of the property was not disputed specifically by the defendants in their pleadings nor any issue was framed. Therefore, the identity of the property cannot be permitted to be disputed by the appellant in the present second appeal for the first time. 10. The argument that the defendant is a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration is again not tenable. There is no issue framed to the effect whether defendant No.2 is a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Even otherwise, Kaushalya Devi has no saleable interest in the property in dispute. 10. The argument that the defendant is a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration is again not tenable. There is no issue framed to the effect whether defendant No.2 is a bona-fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Even otherwise, Kaushalya Devi has no saleable interest in the property in dispute. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had made inquiries from the Sub Registrar office in respect of the title of Gurbachan Singh. The only reliance is on the revenue record. But the property was within the municipal limits. It is well settled that the entries in the revenue record are not entries of title and therefore, do not confer any right in favour of the appellant. 11. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the findings recorded or that the findings recorded give rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. The remedy, if any, available to the appellant is to recover the sale consideration paid to Kaushalya Devi. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.