Punjab-Haryana High Court
(O&M) Kamla vs Ramesh Chand And Others on 29 April, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057967
RSA-858-1994 2024:PHHC:057967
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
105
RSA-858-1994
Date of decision: 29.04.2024
KAMLA ..Appellant
Versus
RAMESH CHAND & ORS. ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Dr. R.N. Bharti, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate
and Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3, 6, 8 & 9.
Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate
for respondent No.4, 5 and 7.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
1. The plaintiff has filed this regular second appeal challenging the
correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, which in
appeal has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court.
2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
3. Sh. Harnam Singh was the common ancestor of the parties. He
was first married to Smt. Manauri. She gave birth to Smt. Kamla from the
loins of Sh. Harnam Singh. Subsequently, Sh. Harnam Singh married to Smt.
Indravati, who gave birth to five children including Sh. Rajpal from the loins
of Sh. Harnam Singh. While acknowledging the family settlement, Sh.
Harnam Singh suffered a consent decree dated 10.06.1974, in favour of the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057967
RSA-858-1994 2024:PHHC:057967
appellant with respect to the land measuring 20 kanal and 12 marlas. Smt.
Indravati and her five daughters filed a suit challenging the decree dated
10.06.1974. Sh. Rajpal filed a separate suit challenging the decree dated
10.06.1974. The suit filed by Smt. Indravati and her children was dismissed
in default on 20.01.1981 as Smt. Indravati, her daughters or their counsel did
not appear in Court on the date fixed. On 22.01.1981, the plaintiff executed
and got an affidavit attested admitting that Sh. Rajpal is the owner of 20
kanal and 12 marlas land. The suit filed by Sh. Rajpal was decreed on
24.01.1981. Thereafter, Sh. Rajpal transferred the property by virtue of six
sale deeds executed in favour of various vendees. Three sale deeds were
executed on 08.12.1981, whereas, three sale deeds were executed during the
pendency of the suit.. The plaintiff filed suit in August, 1982 challenging the
decree dated 24.01.1981, in which Sh. Rajpal did not appear resulting in
decree dated 03.08.1984.
4. Thereafter, she filed the present suit on 16.04.1986. In this suit,
Sh. Rajpal was proceeded against ex parte. The remaining defendants
pleaded that they are bonafide purchasers of the property for valuable
consideration. They had no notice of the dispute between the plaintiff and
her step-mother and step siblings. Both the Courts came to a conclusion that
the decree dated 03.08.1984, is a result of collusion between the plaintiff and
Sh. Rajpal. It has also been held that Sh. Rajpal was the ostensible owner of
the property and by virtue of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, they are the bonafide purchasers.
5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paperbook.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057967
RSA-858-1994 2024:PHHC:057967
6. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that
while appearing in evidence, the plaintiff has admitted her signatures on
affidavit dated 22.01.1981, however, she has denied the knowledge of its
contents. He submits that the efforts have been made to deprive the plaintiff
of her property by playing fraud. He submits that two suits were filed
challenging the decree dated 10.06.1974, out of which one was dismissed in
default on 20.01.1981 and thereafter, an affidavit from her was got executed.
7. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
8. The affidavit dated 22.01.1981 is 'Ex.D-1' on the record. It is
scribed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.3/-. It runs into two pages. Smt.
Kamla Devi has not only signed both the pages but also thumb marked the
same. She has appended her signatures and thumb impression on the first
page, whereas, she has appended her signatures and thumb impression on the
second page on two different places. She admits her signatures. It is her case
that this affidavit was obtained by playing fraud, however, she has failed to
prove the same. In the affidavit, she has acknowledged that the suit filed by
Smt. Indravati had been dismissed in default on 20.01.1981, and she has
entered into a settlement. She has admitted that she acknowledges Sh. Rajpal
as the owner of the property and she has no objection if the suit filed by Sh.
Rajpal is decreed.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and Smt. Kamla Devi's
subsequent conduct, which resulted in decree dated 24.01.1981, it is evident
that she willingly acknowledged Sh. Rajpal as the owner of property.
Moreover, Sh. Rajpal never appeared in a subsequent suit filed by the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057967
RSA-858-1994 2024:PHHC:057967
plaintiff. Admittedly, three sale deeds executed by Sh. Rajpal i.e. Ex.P-13,
Ex.P-14 & Ex.P-16 were before filing of the suit by plaintiff. She did not
implead the purchasers as party in the aforesaid suit.
10. Thus, both the Courts have correctly come to a conclusion that
the respondents are the bonafide purchasers of the property and the decree
dated 03.08.1984, was result of collusion between the plaintiff and her
family members.
11. Hence, no ground to interfere is made out.
12. Dismissed accordingly.
13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
April 29th, 2024 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
