Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2832 (PNJ)

Charanjit Kaur v. Sohan Singh

2023-09-21

VIKRAM AGGARWAL

body2023
Judgment Mr. Vikram Aggarwal, J. :- CM-16870-C-2018 Prayer in the present application moved under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is for impleading the legal representatives of respondent No.2-Sat Pal Kaur who is stated to have expired in the year 2013. The details of the legal representatives of respondent No.2 have been given in paragraph 2 of the application. It has also been averred that apart from the legal representatives mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, there are no other legal representatives of respondent No.2. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Legal representatives of respondent No.2 are ordered to be brought on record. Amended memo of parties appended alongwith the application is taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place in the case file. Main Case 1. This is plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide which the appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar was dismissed. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005, the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration had been dismissed. 2. The appellant-plaintiff is the widow of one Ajaib Singh. Ajaib Singh executed the sale deed dated 10.10.2006 in favour of the respondents-defendants with regard to the land measuring 25 kanal 8 marlas, being 4/9 share out of 57 kanal 3 marlas (fully described in the plaint) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit land’) situated in Village Chak Rautan, Tehsil Garhshankar. 3. A civil suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the sale deed dated 10.10.2006 executed by Ajaib Singh with regard to the suit land was forged, illegal and was without consideration and was, therefore, not effective against the rights of the appellant-plaintiff. Consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from alienating the suit land was also sought. The case set up by the appellant-plaintiff was that Ajaib Singh was a drunkard, alcoholic and that he used to remain under depression and the respondents-defendants had got the sale deed executed from Ajaib Singh without giving him any money. On the basis of the sale deed, the respondents-defendants had got mutation also sanctioned. 4. The suit was opposed by the respondents-defendants. On the basis of the sale deed, the respondents-defendants had got mutation also sanctioned. 4. The suit was opposed by the respondents-defendants. It was averted in the written statement that the sale deed had been executed by Ajaib Singh for sale consideration of Rs. 13,30,500/- which had been deposited in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Garhshankar and after the death of Ajaib Singh, the appellant-plaintiff and her children had withdrawn the amount of sale consideration. It was averted that the mutation had been rightly sanctioned. 5. In the replication, the averments made in the written statement were denied and those made in the plaint were reiterated. “1. Whether the sale deed dated 10.10.06 executed by Ajaib Singh in favour of the defendants is forged, illegal and without consideration? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff is estopped from his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9. Relief.” 7. Parties led their respective evidence. 8. After considering the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit. An appeal was filed which was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court leading to the filing of the present regular second appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that both the Courts below gravely erred in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. It has been submitted that the respondents-defendants failed to prove that they had deposited the sale consideration in the account of Ajaib Singh. Learned counsel has submitted that it had been proved on record that Ajaib Singh was an alcoholic and that he used to remain under depression and the sale deed had been got executed by the respondents-defendants from Ajaib Singh in a fraudulent manner. Learned counsel has submitted that it had been proved on record that Ajaib Singh was an alcoholic and that he used to remain under depression and the sale deed had been got executed by the respondents-defendants from Ajaib Singh in a fraudulent manner. Learned counsel referred to the cross- examination of the witnesses produced by the respondents-defendants and submitted that there was contradiction in the statement of the witnesses with regard to the place where allegedly the sale consideration had been paid. It has also been submitted that no evidence worth its name was led by the defendants to prove that the sale consideration had been deposited by them in the bank account of Ajaib Singh. Learned counsel has submitted that under the circumstances, the suit of the appellant-plaintiff deserved to be decreed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 12. Before adverting to the merits of the appeal, it would be essential to observe that that the requirement of framing of a substantial question of law in second appeal in terms of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and as had been laid down in various pronouncements by the Hon’ble Apex Court including Hero Vinoth (minor) versus Seshammal 2006 (5) SCC 545 , was subsequently held to be not there by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was held that in the States of Punjab and Haryana, it is the provisions of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 which would be applicable and, therefore, Section 100 CPC would not hold the field and, accordingly, there would be no requirement of framing substantial question of law in second appeal. With regard to the States of Punjab and Haryana, it was so held in Kirodi (Since Deceased) through his Lr. Versus Ram Parkash & Ors. 2019 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) and Satyender and Ors. Versus Saroj and Ors. 2022 (12) Scale 92 respectively. 13. As per issue No.1, the onus to prove that the sale deed dated 10.10.2006 executed by Ajaib Singh in favour of the respondents-defendants was forged, illegal and was without consideration was upon the plaintiff. The appellant-plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She reiterated her version in the examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination, she stated that she had a joint account with her husband Ajaib Singh and that they used to deposit their earnings of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. The appellant-plaintiff stepped into the witness box as PW-1. She reiterated her version in the examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination, she stated that she had a joint account with her husband Ajaib Singh and that they used to deposit their earnings of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month which they were earning from stitching and embroidery and beauty training in the said account. However, the passbook etc. was not produced in evidence and it was stated that the same had been torn by the Branch Manager. She stated that she did not know as to whether Rs. 8 lacs out of the sale consideration of Rs. 13,30,900/- had been deposited in her account. She admitted that she and her daughter had withdrawn Rs. 6,65,000/- from the bank. She further admitted that her husband had expired on 06.08.2007 and that she had repaid a loan of Rs.1 lac also on 10.10.2006 i.e. on the date of the execution of the sale deed. She denied all suggestions with regard to execution of the sale deed. Her sister Kuldip Kaur also stepped into the witness box who stated that Ajaib Singh remained under depression. However, no medical record was produced to prove that he was under some treatment for depression. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was deposing whatever her sister had asked her to depose. She stated that Ajaib Singh had never told her or his wife that he had been cheated. Though PW-3 Mohan Lal, Lamberdar stated that Ajaib Singh had told him that the respondents-defendants had got the sale deed executed from him without payment of any sale consideration, in the cross-examination he spilled the beans. He stated that he had seen Ajaib Singh drinking for the last 15 years as he was his friend but he used to do his work normally and never quarrelled with anyone. 14. On the other hand, the respondents-defendants examined one Gurdas Ram, Lamberdar as DW-1, who was also a witness to the sale deed. He stated that the sale deed had been executed by Ajaib Singh in favour of the respondents-defendants for valuable consideration. He stated that no payment was made in his presence but Ajaib Singh had admitted about the receipt of the payment. Sohan Singh appeared as DW-2 and stated that payment was made in the presence of the Tehsildar. He stated that the sale deed had been executed by Ajaib Singh in favour of the respondents-defendants for valuable consideration. He stated that no payment was made in his presence but Ajaib Singh had admitted about the receipt of the payment. Sohan Singh appeared as DW-2 and stated that payment was made in the presence of the Tehsildar. He stated that he could not tell as to whether the payment was made through cash or cheque. Moving on further in his cross-examination, he stated that the payment had been made in the Court Complex. This contradiction in itself would not lead us to the conclusion that the sale deed was without consideration. Some times rustic villagers get unnerved during cross-examination and that too when they are asked questions about payment of cash since they do not understand for what purpose the question is being asked. A registered document even otherwise has a presumption of genuineness attached to it and it would be very easy for anyone to get up and say after the death of the executant of the sale deed that the sale deed had been executed without any sale consideration. The very fact that the appellant-plaintiff withdrew a huge amount from her account on the date on which the sale deed had been executed in itself is a pointer to the fact that the sale deed had been executed for consideration. 15. Both the Courts below, after correct appreciation of the evidence, recorded concurrent findings of fact with which no fault has been found by this Court. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present regular second appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.