Jeet Singh vs Randhir Singh And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 16663 P&H

                                                                 Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:126280
                               RSA-1108-2020                                                   -1-
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                              AT CHANDIGARH
                      120
                                                                            RSA-1108-2020
                                                                            Decided on : 25.09.2023

                      Jeet Singh
                                                                                      . . . Appellant(s)
                                                          Versus
                      Randhir Singh and another
                                                                                   . . . Respondent(s)

                      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH

                      PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jain, Sr. Advocate with
                               Mr. Varun Parkash, Advocate
                               for the appellant(s).
                                                     ****

                      SANJAY VASHISTH, J. (Oral)

1. Present Regular Second Appeal (RSA) has been filed by

defendant No.2 (appellant herein) against the concurrent findings of

dismissal of suit for partition.

2. For the purpose of clarification, learned Senior counsel for the

appellant (defendant No.2) submits that in fact, defendant No.2 - Jeet Singh,

purchased the property in question from the plaintiff - Randhir Singh, during

the pendency of the suit before the Trial Court, therefore, during the

pendency of the suit, he was impleaded as defendant No.2. First appeal filed

by him also stands dismissed. Thus, he has filed present regular second

appeal before this Court.

3. Learned Senior counsel submits that plaintiff - Randhir Singh,

has filed a suit for partition against the defendant - Kailash Gahlot with the

averment that the plaintiff and defendants are joint owners in equal shares of

the land comprised in Khewat No.139, Khatoni No.144, Rect. No.4, Killa

No.24 (8-0), Rect. No.12, Killa No.3/1 (0-12), 3/2 (0-8), 3/6 (1-1), 3/7 (0- JAWALA RAM 2023.09.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:126280

17), 3/8 (0-12), 3/9 (0-3), 8/1 (1-14), 8/2 (1-12), 8/4 (1-13), 3/6 (0-12), area

16 Kanal 14 Marla, situated in the revenue estate of Pawala Khushrupur.

There remains quarrel between the parties with regard to the possession over

respective shares. Plaintiff does not want to keep suit property as joint any-

more. So far, the property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds by

any competent court.

4. In the written statement filed by defendants, apart taking the

formal objections, it has been pleaded that plaintiff himself, his sister -

Sushila Devi and mother - Kela Devi, had filed a Civil Suit bearing No.136

of 1998, on 30.04.1998, seeking relief of declaration and permanent

injunction against Prem Properties Pvt. Ltd. In the said suit, sister and

mother of the plaintiff claimed their ownership along with possession over

the land, which is also a subject matter of the present suit, measuring 16

Kanal 14 Marla, situated in revenue estate of Village Pawala Khushrupur,

Gurugram. Said suit was dismissed on 04.05.2005 by the Court of Addl.

Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gurugram.

Mr. Amit Jain, learned Senior counsel for the appellant

(defendant No.2) points out that in fact, in the proceedings of the said suit,

name of plaintiff - Randhir Singh is not mentioned in the facts detailed in the

said judgment passed by the Trial Court in that suit.

5. Appeal against the said judgment & decree of dismissal of the

suit filed by all three of them, was also dismissed by the learned Lower

Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005.

6. Taking note of the said fact, learned Courts below concluded

that once, plaintiff was not having any valid title in the property in question,

same could not be transferred by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2. JAWALA RAM 2023.09.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:126280

In such a scenario, even plea of bona fide purchaser would not exist. In this

regard, relevant findings recorded by learned First Appellate Court in

paragraph Nos. 21, 22 & 23, are reproduced here-under:-

"21. From the above discussion, it is observed that

when respondent No.1/plaintiff himself was not having any

valid title in the property in question then how he can sell out

the said property to appellant/defendant No.2. Though

appellant/defendant No.2 himself claiming to be bonafide

purchaser in possession of the suit property and had

purchased the same after proper verification but in this

regard no cogent evidence has been placed on court file that

he was not aware of this fact that the suit property was not in

possession of respondent No.1/plaintiff as he has lost every

right regarding the said property by way of agreement to sell

dated 08.09.1995 and General Power of Attorney dated

10.10.1995 which had been executed in favour of M/s Prem

Properties Private Limited.

22. As far as contention of learned counsel for

appellant/defendant No.2 that these above said documents

cannot be considered as they have not been proved and

exhibited on the case file as per Indian Evidence Act, the said

contention is of no force because qua these documents,

Ex.DW3/1 i.e. judgment passed by Ms. Shalini Singh Nagpal,

learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurugram

and Ex.DW3/5 i.e. judgment passed by Shri K.C.Sharma,

learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram has already JAWALA RAM 2023.09.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:126280

attained the finality by dint of which the authenticity of above

said documents have been confirmed, so it can be presumed

that these documents are genuine one and certainly be taken

into consideration while deciding the present appeals. The

learned lower court vide impugned judgment dated

23.08.2016 has rightly placed reliance upon these documents

that by way of these very documents the suit property has

already been sold out by Prem Properties Private Limited to

various persons vide separate sale deeds Ex.DW1/1,

Ex.DW2/2 to Ex.DW2/11 who certainly have not been made

party by Randhir Singh/plaintiff.

23. So, finding no merits in the present appeal the

same is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree dated

23.08.2016, passed by Ms.Mohini, learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Gurugram is upheld. Decree sheets be

prepared. Trial court record be sent back together with a

copy of the Judgment. Appeal file be consigned to records

after due compliance."

7. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant (defendant

No.2) and also gone through relevant record of the case.

8. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned

Court below, that there being no right with the plaintiff, property could never

be transferred by him to anyone, thus, Court is of the view that no question

of maintainability of suit by partition at his instance arises.

Besides, no question of law, much less, any substantial question JAWALA RAM 2023.09.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Neutral Citation No. : 2023:PHHC:126280

of law arises for consideration in the present appeal for interference in the

impugned judgments & decree passed by the Courts below.

Thus, the instant appeal being devoid of merits, stands

dismissed. The judgment(s) & decree passed by both the Courts below are

hereby affirmed.

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE September 25, 2023 J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

JAWALA RAM 2023.09.26 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document