Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder And Others vs Joginder Singh And Others on 1 August, 2022
RSA No. 959 of 2012 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
128
RSA No. 959 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 01.08.2022
Sukhwinder and others ...Appellants
Versus
Joginder Singh and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present:- Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
for the applicants-appellants.
Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
CM-4795-C-2022
Prayer in this application is for restoration of the main appeal,
which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.07.2022.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The main appeal is restored to its original number and stage. Let it be taken
up today itself for final arguments.
RSA No. 959 of 2012 (O&M)
Challenge in this appeal, filed by the appellants/defendants, is
laid to the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2004 passed by the trial Court,
vide which the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed, as well
as to the judgment passed by the lower appellate Court, vide which the
appeal of the appellants/defendants was dismissed by the lower appellate
Court.
1 of 4
Brief facts of the case as noticed in the judgment of lower
appellate Court are as under:
"2. Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 5
Kanals 19 marlas was originally owned by Mangal Singh
and Swaran Singh sons of Bhana son of Kesar, resident
of village Bhaini Banger, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
Said Mangal Singh died on 18.10.1976, whereas, Swaran
Singh died on 22.5.1986. Plaintiff No.1 was the son of
Mangal Singh and plaintiff No.2 was the grand son of
Mangal Singh, whereas, defendant No.5 was the son of
Swaran Singh, the onlylegal heirs and successors-in-
interest of the deceased. It was alleged that the
plaintiffs and defendant No.5 had inherited the estate of
deceased Mangal Singh and Sowaran Singh,
respectively. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were residing at
Danga Mahisila P.S. Asansol District Burdwan, CD/77/2
MAMC, Durgapur and as such, they had appointed
Gurdial Singh as their general attorney vide general
power of attorney dated 26.4.2000. It was further alleged
that in the month of March, 2000, the plaintiffs came to
know that defendants Nos.1 and 2 had been entered as
Owners of the suit land on the basis of illegal sale deed
dated 7.1.1997. The plaintiffs were not residing in the
village and they had settled at far away places from the
village. On the basis of the alleged sale deed dated
7.1.1997 allegedly executed by Mangal Singh and
Swaran Singh, defendants Nos.1 and 2 had been shown
to be owners of the suit land in the revenue record. It was
also alleged that defendant no.3 impersonated himself as
Mangal Singh and defendant No.4 as Swaran Singh
before the Sub Registrar, Gurdaspur, in order to grab the
suit land and got the sale deed executed in favour of their
wives defendants nos.1 and 2. The alleged vendors had
2 of 4
already died and there was no occasion for the alleged
sale deed dated 7.1.1997. It showed that the sale deed
dated 7.1.1997 was illegal and bogus. Defendants Nos.1
and 2 had no right, title or interest in the suit land. It was
further lleged that in the sale deed, Rect . No .27 Killa
No.23/1（4-9) was shown out of which 0-9 marlas was
sold and Rect. No.27 Killa No.18/2 (5-10). In the
Jamabandi, Rect. NO. 27, Killa No.23/1/1 (0-9) had been
shown to have been 73 sold as the said khasra Number
after the sale was bifurcated. The plaintiffs were the
owners of the suit land alongwith defendant No.5 and
were not bound by the alleged sale deed. The possession
of defendants Nos.1 to 4 was illegal and the plaintiffs
were entitled to the recovery of possession from
defendants Nos.1 to 4 and as such, suit was filed out of
which, the present appeal has arisen.
3. Upon notice, defendants Nos.1 to 4 appeared and
contested the suit by filing written statement taking the
preliminary objections that the suit was not maintainable
and that the plaintiffs were neither owners, nor in
possession of the suit land and that the suit was not
maintainable and was not properly valued and was liable
to be stayed U/S 10 CPC and that it was barred by
principles of res judicata and was not within time and
that the standi to file the plaintiffs had no locus suit and
that it was bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of
parties. On merits, it was submitted that the defendants
were the owners in possession of the suit land and the
mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. It was
averred that the defendants had purchased the suit land
from Mangal Singh and Sowaran Singh vide registered
sale deed dated 7.1.1997. It was denied that plaintiff
No.1 was the son of Mangal Singh whereas, plaintiff
No.2 was the grandson of Mangal singh. It was also
3 of 4
denied that defendant No.5 was the son of Sowaran
Singh. It was also denied that the plaintiffs were the
legal heirs and successors-in- interest of Mangal Singh
and Sowaran Singh. The plaintiffs and defendant No.5
had no right, title or interest in the suit land. The alleged
power of attorney dated 26.4.2000 was forged and
fabricated document. It was maintained that the sale deed
dated 7.1.1997 was legal and valid and the defendants
were Owners in cultivating possession of the suit land.
All other averments of the plaint were denied being
incorrect. It was prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs was
without any merit and as such, same was liable to be
dismissed with costs."
The trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the
declaration that they alongwith defendant No. 5
are the owners of the suit land measuring 5 Kanals
19 marlas as the sale deed dated 7.1.1997 alleged
to have been executed by Mangal Singh and
Swaran Singh in favour is illegal ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the
possession of the suit land ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD
4. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed U/s 10
CPC? OPD
5. Whether the suit is barred by resjudicata? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not within limitation ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to
file the present suit ? OPD
8. Whether the suit is not properly valued ? OPD
9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of necessary parties ? OPD
4 of 4
