Charan Singh And Others vs Sukhi Ram And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4241 P&H

                            RSA No.2878 of 2022                   -1-                   2023:PHHC:052082

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                              106                                  RSA No.2878 of 2022 (O&M)
                                                                   Reserved on : 12.04.2023
                                                                   Date of Decision : 17.04.2023


                            Charan Singh and Others                                          ....Appellants

                                                              VERSUS

                            Sukhi Ram (Deceased) through LRs and Others                    ....Respondents


                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present :    Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the appellants.


                            ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-

appellants against the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the Courts

below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. Vide judgment and

decree dated 01.04.2017, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for

declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the Trial Court.

Appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants was dismissed by the First

Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2022.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration that the judgment and decree

dated 06.07.2013 passed in Civil Suit No.87 of 2012 titled 'Charan vs.

Rajender' and sale deed dated 22.10.2013 bearing document No.1368,

registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Mohna be declared null and void

and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff-respondents and further that the

defendant-appellants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff-

respondents from the suit property and from interfering in their possession.

JITENDER KUMAR The case set-up by the plaintiff-respondents was that Dalip Singh and Smt. 2023.04.17 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             RSA No.2878 of 2022                   -2-                   2023:PHHC:052082

Bhuliya had three sons namely, Sukhi Ram, Kiran and Randhir. The

plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Dalip Singh whereas the

plaintiff-respondent Nos.3 to 8 are the children of Kiran son of Dalip Singh.

One Nihala had three sons namely, Pyare Lal, Kanhiya Lal and Devi Sahay.

Nihala was the owner of land measuring 31 kanals 06 marlas and after him

his sons namely, Pyare Lal, Kanhiya and Devi Sahay became owners of the

land to the extent of 1/3rd share each i.e. 10 kanals 09 marlas. Kanhiya Lal

during his life time entered into an agreement to sell dated 06.08.1990 in

respect of his 1/3rd share i.e. 10 kanals 09 marlas in favour of Dalip Singh.

Since the sale deed was not executed in terms of the agreement to sell, Dalip

Singh instituted Civil Suit No.72 of 1983 seeking the relief of specific

performance. The suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated

14.09.1985 and consequently the sale deed dated 04.01.1988 was registered

through the Local Commissioner and possession was also handed over.

Pyare Lal (predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellant Nos.1 to 6)

also entered into an agreement to sell dated 30.09.1980 in favour of Dalip

Singh qua land measuring 10 kanals 01 marla. Qua the said agreement to

sell also Dalip Singh filed Civil Suit No.73 of 1983 for specific

performance. The suit was decreed on 14.09.1985 and thereafter, through the

agency of the Court, sale deed dated 04.01.1988 was executed. It is apt to

note that after the sale of 10 kanals 01 marla of land by Pyare Lal, he was

left with 08 marlas of land. It was further the case set up by the plaintiff-

respondents that on an earlier occasion the defendant-appellant Nos.1 to 4

with their sister namely, Jhanjhan, instituted Civil Suit No.9 of 2009 titled

'Charan vs. Kiran' seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiffs therein

were owners and in peaceful physical, continuous, uninterrupted possession JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.17 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             RSA No.2878 of 2022                    -3-                   2023:PHHC:052082

of land measuring 10 kanals 17 marlas i.e. 1/3rd share of the land measuring

32 kanals 12 marlas by declaring the earlier litigation and proceedings as not

binding on their right, title or interest. The said suit was dismissed in default

on 17.09.2013. Yet another suit being Civil Suit No.87 of 2012 titled

'Charan vs. Rajender' was filed wherein the plaintiffs therein i.e. defendant-

appellant Nos.1 to 6 herein depicted themselves as owners in possession of

1/3rd share of the agricultural land. In the said suit the plaintiff-respondents

herein were not arrayed as the contesting defendants as the suit was filed

against Charan, Ramesh, Jhanjhan, Chanderwati and Vidya Wati, who had

no concern with the property. The said persons had inherited 08 marlas of

land left by Pyare Lal. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree

dated 06.07.2013 and on the basis of the said judgment and decree the sale

deed dated 22.10.2013 was registered in favour of the defendant-appellant

No.7. Hence, the challenge in the present suit. On notice, defendant-

appellant Nos.1 to 6 filed a written statement wherein it was averred that

Pyare Lal was also the owner in possession of other agricultural land which

was got transferred in compliance of decree dated 14.09.1985. It was further

averred that the civil suit had been filed on different grounds which was

pending adjudication and that the suit property and the property sold by

Pyare Lal were not the same. Smt. Ramesh, defendant-appellant No.7, filed

a separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua the

maintainability, non-joinder of necessary party and no cause of action. She

claimed herself to being a bona fide purchaser of the suit property for

valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 22.10.2013.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues

were framed by the Trial Court :

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.17 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             RSA No.2878 of 2022                    -4-                   2023:PHHC:052082

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of decree of

declaration as prayed for ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of decree

of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable

in the present form ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and no

locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Relief.

4. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2017,

decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred by the

defendant-appellants which appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and

decree dated 11.10.2022. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend

that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the plaintiff-

respondents did not have a better title against the defendant-appellants in

view of the judgment and decree dated 06.07.2013. It is further the

contention that there was no evidence on the record to establish the

ownership of the suit property.

7. In the present case, both the Courts below have concurrently

returned findings of fact holding that the defendant-appellants played a fraud

not only with the plaintiff-respondents but also with the Court by obtaining

ex-parte judgment and decree dated 06.07.2013 against non-existing person

namely, Rajender son of Lakhmi, who had no concern with the suit property

and on the strength of the same, claiming themselves to be in possession, JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.17 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             RSA No.2878 of 2022                       -5-                         2023:PHHC:052082

sold the property vide sale deed dated 22.10.2013 to the defendant-appellant

No.7 despite the fact that the said property already stood sold by Pyare Lal

in favour of Dalip Singh on the basis of judgment and decree dated

14.09.1985 (Ex.P1 and Ex.P2) and that neither the defendant-appellant

Nos.1 to 6 nor their predecessor had any concern with the suit property.

Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not been able to show how

the property in dispute is different from the one sold vide sale deed dated

22.10.2013. There is not an iota of evidence to this effect. Counsel for the

defendant-appellants has reiterated the submissions that were advanced

before the Courts below and which submissions were rejected after due and

comprehensive consideration. Learned counsel has not been able to convince

this Court that any interference is called for in the concurrent findings of fact

recorded by both the Courts below. No material irregularity or illegality in

the findings recorded by the Courts below has been highlighted.

8. In view of the discussion above, no question of law, much less

any substantial question of law, arises for determination by this Court in the

present case. The present appeal is wholly devoid of any merit and is

dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

9. Dismissed.

                            17.04.2023                                                            ( ALKA SARIN )
                            jk                                                                        JUDGE

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

JITENDER KUMAR 2023.04.17 09:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh