Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Kumar vs Bhulla Ram And Ors on 4 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046974
RSA-2791-1993 (O&M)
and other connected case 1 2024:PHHC:046974
151 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1.RSA-2791-1993 (O&M)
Sh.Ram Kumar
....Appellant
Versus
Sh.Bhulla Ram (since deceased) through his LRs and others
..Respondents
2.COCP-3589-2014
Sh.Ram Kumar
.....Petitioner
Versus
Lakhmi Chand and others
.....Respondents
Date of decision: 04.04.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for
Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for the appellant
in RSA-2791-1993 and
for the petitioner in COCP-3589-2014
Mr.Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate
for the respondents no. 1(i) to 1(vi)
in RSA-2791-1993 and
for the respondents in COCP-3589-2014
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the
parties, these two connected cases i.e RSA-2791-1993 and COCP-3589-
2014 shall stand disposed of by this common order.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046974
RSA-2791-1993 (O&M)
and other connected case 2 2024:PHHC:046974
2. In the Regular Second Appeal, the plaintiff assails the
correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate
Court, in which in turn has reversed the judgment and decree passed by
the trial court.
3. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present
case, some relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. Sh.Hardwari was the common ancestor. He had two sons
namely Sh.Bhulla Ram and Sh.Prabhu. The plaintiff-appellant is
Sh.Ram Kumar son of Sh.Bhulla Ram whereas defendant no.2 Sh.Goria
is son of Sh.Prabhu. Defendant no.1 is son of Sh.Goria. The plaintiff is
an unmarried and issueless person. He mortgaged the suit land for
Rs.6,000/- in favour of Sh.Goria. This mortgage is not disputed.
Subsequently, Sh.Ram Kumar also executed a registered sale deed in
favour of Sh.Bhulla s/o Sh.Goria for Rs.11,000/-. It was recorded in the
sale deed that he has received Rs.5,000/- whereas Rs.6,000/-, the amount
of mortgage money has been adjusted. The plaintiff claims that he
intended to execute a lease deed but a sale deed has been registered. The
trial court decreed the suit, however, the First Appellate Court reversed
the decree. It has been found by the First Appellate Court that the
plaintiff's suit was hopelessly filed beyond the prescribed time as the
sale deed was executed in January, 1975 whereas the suit was filed in the
year 1986. Moreover, the First Appellate Court has held that the
appellant is not a rustic villager as he had already executed a mortgage
deed. In any case, the sale deed in favour of a close relative. Although,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046974
RSA-2791-1993 (O&M)
and other connected case 3 2024:PHHC:046974
the plaintiff has claimed that he initiated to execute a lease deed,
however, no cogent evidence in this regard was produced.
5. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length
and with their able assistance perused the paperbook, alongwith the
requisitioned record.
6. Learned counsel representing the appellant contends that a
fraud was played upon the appellant and hence, the period of limitation
will begin to run from the date of knowledge.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel representing the parties.
8. The First Appellate Court, upon appreciation of evidence,
has come to a firm conclusion that there was no fraud or
misrepresentation. It is the case of the plaintiff that he intends to execute
a lease deed for a period of 10 years. In these circumstances, the
plaintiff cannot claim lack of knowledge of the document, particularly
when the registered sale deed was executed in favour of a close family
member.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground to interfere
is made out.
10. Hence, the Regular Second Appeal stands dismissed.
11. The Contempt petition has been filed alleging infringement
of the interim order passed by the Court. Since the appeal has already
been dismissed, therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the
contempt petition and the same is hereby disposed of.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046974
RSA-2791-1993 (O&M)
and other connected case 4 2024:PHHC:046974
12. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
04.04.2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
