Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 660 (PNJ)

Gurcharan Singh v. Hazura Singh through LRs.

2014-04-01

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - Plaintiff-respondent Hazura Singh filed the instant suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner of the suit land relating to the shares of defendants no.1 to 11. Further claim was made that the sale deed executed by defendants no.1 to 3 in favour of defendant no.12 Gurcharan Singh (now appellant) on 13.5.1981 for a sum of Rs.7500/- was null and void. 2. In the suit, it was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent that the land described in the head note of the plaint which is situated at Vill. Sangatpura was exclusively owned by him, which includes the share already held by defendants no.1 to 11 and that of the sale executed on 13.5.1981 by defendants no.1 to 3 in favour of defendant no.12. It was alleged that land measuring 39 Bighas 3 Biswas was owned by Hazura Singh (plaintiff), his brother Nasib Singh son of Misli to the extent of half share and other half share was owned by Pala. After the death of Pala, there was a dispute of inheritance. Predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.4 to 10 and defendants no.1 and 2 relinquished their rights in the suit land relating to inheritance of Pala in favour of the plaintiff and Nasib Singh through a registered relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961. Thus, rights of inheritance relating to the property of Pala concerning defendants no.1 to 11 ceased to exist and Hazura Singh and Nasib Singh became owners of the said share. Said Nasib Singh died issueless and the plaintiff, who was his brother, succeeded him. Thus, all the rights relating to defendants no.1 to 11 in the estate of Pala ultimately devolved upon the plaintiff alone. It was a joint khata and the plaintiff considering the whole land belonging to him, cultivated the same to be owner of the whole property and even on behalf of other co-sharers also. After consolidation, new khasra numbers were substituted. Defendants no.1 to 3 sold their share in the suit property to defendant no.12, namely, Gurcharan Singh to the extent of 1/54 share of Garja Singh, 1/54 share of Ujagar Singh and 9/54 share of Ajmer Singh. After consolidation, new khasra numbers were substituted. Defendants no.1 to 3 sold their share in the suit property to defendant no.12, namely, Gurcharan Singh to the extent of 1/54 share of Garja Singh, 1/54 share of Ujagar Singh and 9/54 share of Ajmer Singh. Since their rights had extinguished in the suit property because of the relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961, they were entitled to sell away the suit property and the sale deed executed by them in favour of defendant no.2 was null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the instant suit for declaration. 3. Defendants no.1 to 3 and 12 contested the suit, whereas other defendants were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The contesting defendants denied the pedigree table and exclusive ownership of the plaintiff. They further denied the relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961 and alleged that the revenue entries are correct and defendants no.1 to 3 have rightly sold their share to defendant no.12, who was a bona fide purchaser in good faith for consideration of a sum of Rs.7,500/- and as such, was protected under the provisions of law and thus, dismissal of the suit was prayed for. 4. In the replication, pleadings of the plaint were reaffirmed and that of the additional objections taken were denied. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether Hazura Singh plaintiff and his brother Nasib Singh deceased were the owner of 1/2 share in khata No.57/156 of the land situated in Village Sangatpura as alleged in para one of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether Smt. Kako predecessor-in-interest of defendant no.4 to 10 alongwith Garja Singh defendant No.1 Ujagar Singh and defendant No.2, relinquished their right of inheritance to the property of Pala deceased vide registered relinquishment deed dated 17.1.61 as alleged in para 3 of the plaint? If so, its effect? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is the only legal heir entitled to succeed to the property of Nasib Singh deceased as alleged in para 4 of the plaint? OPP. 4 Whether the sale out of the suit property by defendant No.1 to 3, in favour of Gurcharan Singh defendant no.12 is null and void and the sale deeds are liable to be cancelled as alleged in para 7 and 9 of the plaint? OPP. 5. OPP. 4 Whether the sale out of the suit property by defendant No.1 to 3, in favour of Gurcharan Singh defendant no.12 is null and void and the sale deeds are liable to be cancelled as alleged in para 7 and 9 of the plaint? OPP. 5. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPP. 6. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 8. Relief.” 5. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court decided issues no.1 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff whereas issues no.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 were decided against the plaintiff and the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 15.5.1984 6. Aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, plaintiff filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court, which was accepted vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.4.1986 and the plaintiff-respondent was declared owner relating to the share of defendants no.1 to 11 and sale deed executed by defendants no.1 to 3 in favour of defendant no.12 in respect of the land described in the plaint was held to be null and void. While accepting the appeal, the lower Appellate Court found that the relinquishment deed Ex.PA, which is duly registered, is fully proved and has conferred titled in the property in favour of Hazura Singh and Nasib Singh, as the said relinquishment deed was registered and executed by Garja Singh etc. in a family settlement, which was binding upon them and operates as an estoppel against them and cannot be resiled from and consequently, defendants no.1 to 3 could not transfer any rights in the property vide sale deed dated 13.5.1981 in favour of defendant no.2 Gurcharan Singh (now appellant) qua the share they relinquished. The lower Appellate Court further observed that defendant no.12 cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser. 7. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the appellate Court, defendant no.12 filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. 8. This appeal was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 29.9.1986. 9. The lower Appellate Court further observed that defendant no.12 cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser. 7. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the appellate Court, defendant no.12 filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. 8. This appeal was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 29.9.1986. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant submitted the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this Court:- “1. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is perverse being based upon misreading of evidence on record? 2. Whether the appellant is bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and thus, is protected under the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act?” 10. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that as per the revenue record, it was not shown that Garja Singh etc. have relinquished their share, to the extent of 1/54 share each, in favour of Hazura Singh and the appellant got the sale deed executed along with Ganda Singh and Ishar Kaur, as they continued to be shown as co-sharers in the suit property and thus, appellant was protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It has been further submitted on behalf of the appellant that in view of revenue record, there was nothing more for them to take care of, as they had verified the title of Garja Singh etc. from the revenue record and moreover, the relinquishment deed had not seen the light of the day for continuous period of 22 years and thus, had no sanctity attached to it. 11. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently argued that once a document is registered, it amounts to notice to all and therefore, it cannot be claimed that the relinquishment deed, which is a registered document and proved on record, has no sanctity attached to it and it was for the appellant to carefully inspect the revenue record while purchasing the suit land. Simply because Garja Singh etc. Simply because Garja Singh etc. were shown to be co-sharers in the revenue record qua their remaining share, was not sufficient and thus, it cannot be said that there was any perversity in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and the appellant cannot claim himself to be a bona fide purchaser, as his vendors were not having any right, title or interest in the suit property on execution of sale deed in his favour. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 13. In fact, no argument has been raised on behalf of the appellant challenging the genuineness/validity of the registered relinquishment deed executed by defendants in favour of the plaintiff-respondent qua their share in the suit land vide relinquishment deed dated 17.1.1961. Admittedly, the rights of Garja Singh etc. in the suit land, to the extent of their share relinquished by them, vide relinquishment deed, on the day they executed the sale deed qua the aforesaid land in favour of the appellant., came to an end on that day and they were left with no right, title or interest in the suit property. The relinquishment deed which is duly registered, has been duly proved on record. It is well settled that registration of a document gives notice to the world that such a document has been executed. Such a registration provides information to the people who may deal with a property, as to the nature and extent of rights which a person may have affecting their property. In other words, it enables people to find out whether any property with which they are concerned, has been subjected to any legal liability and who is or are the persons presently having right, title or interest in the property. Reliance be placed in this regard on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & another [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 321 (SC) : 2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 355] : 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 46. 14. Reliance be placed in this regard on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana & another [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 321 (SC) : 2010(1) Law Herald (SC) 355] : 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 46. 14. It could further not be disputed that share of the vendors of the appellant and the plaintiff-respondent in the suit land was duly reflected in the revenue records and in view of the aforesaid fact alone, it cannot be argued on behalf of the appellant that there was nothing more for them except to verify, as they had found the name of the vendors in the revenue record, as cosharers. It was for the appellant to take due care to find out the extent of share held by his vendors in the suit land. Thus, keeping in view the fact that on the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of the appellant, his vendors were not having right, title or interest, having the same been relinquished in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, the appellant cannot be held to be bona fide purchaser of the suit land. 15. In view thereof, the substantial questions of law, as framed, are answered against the appellant and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 16. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————