Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh @ Dev Singh vs Surjit Singh And Ors on 4 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
112 RSA-3891-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 04.11.2024
Sukhdev Singh @ Dev Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Surjit Singh and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Anureet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-10487-C-2019
1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 103 days in
re-filing the present appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The delay of 103 days in re-filing the present appeal is condoned.
CM-10489-C-2019
3. This is an application for condonation of delay of 1 day in filing
the present appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The
delay of 1 day in filing the present appeal is condoned.
RSA-3891-2019 (O&M)
5. Present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2015 passed by the Trial
Court and the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2018 passed by the First
Appellate Court.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143253
6. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are the plaintiff-
appellant filed the present suit averring in the plaint that the defendant-
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and defendant-respondent No.4 are the nephews of the
plaintiff-appellant and that the plaintiff-appellant is the owner of the land
measuring 11 Acres 05 Kanals 14 Marlas. The entire chunk of the land is
unpartitioned. It was further averred that the plaintiff-appellant met with an
accident in the year 1999 which weakened his mental faculty. The plaintiff-
appellant was unable to manage his land. The land was given on lease to
defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the year 2006 and they paid the lease
money till 2007. Thereafter, they stopped paying the lease money and it
transpired that the land measuring 31 Kanals had been transferred in favour
of defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 vide a registered sale deed dated
02.05.2007. It was further averred in the plaint that the said sale deed was
illegal, null and void and the plaintiff-appellant was an illiterate person and
that the sale deed has fraudulently been got executed. On notice the
defendant-respondents filed their written statement raising various
preliminary objections regarding maintainability. It was denied that the
plaintiff-appellant had lost his mental faculty. It was further denied that the
plaintiff-appellant was the owner of land measuring 11 Acres 05 Kanals 14
Marlas as alleged. It was further the stand that the sale deed was a valid sale
deed and defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 were in exclusive possession of
the suit property. Rejoinder was filed. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties the following issues were framed :
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143253
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, as prayed
for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
possession, as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent
injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its
present form ? OPD
5. Relief.
7. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.2015
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same an appeal was preferred by the
plaintiff-appellant which appeal was also dismissed by the First Appellate
Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2018. Hence, the present
regular second appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant would contend that
the plaintiff-appellant was not in a mentally fit condition and the sale deed
was got fraudulently executed. It is further the contention that PW2 and
PW7 had stepped into the witness-box to prove the medical condition of the
plaintiff-appellant and hence the weak medical condition of the plaintiff-
appellant was amply proved showing that he was not mentally fit to execute
the sale deed.
9. Heard.
10. In the present case, though the suit itself was filed challenging
the sale deed dated 09.05.2007 on the ground that the same was the result of
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143253
fraud taking advantage of the weak mental faculties of the plaintiff-
appellant, however, the same was not filed through next friend but was filed
through a power of attorney holder i.e. his wife. The suit having been filed
on the ground that the plaintiff-appellant was a person of weak mental
faculties and hence could not have executed the sale deed is not
substantiated as had it been so then he could not lawfully have executed the
power of attorney either. Having filed the suit through a power of attorney
holder negates the stand taken by the plaintiff-appellant that he had weak
mental faculties. Further still, both the Courts have concurrently found that
there was nothing on the record to even suggest that the plaintiff-appellant
was not in a position to execute the sale deed. DW1 Inder Kumar, Registry
Clerk had proved on the record the sale deed and Jamabandi as Ex.D11 and
Ex.D12. Another witness DW2 Harnek Singh had appeared in the witness-
box and had deposed that the sale deed had been prepared at the behest of
Sukhdev Singh and after admitting the contents to be correct Sukhdev Singh
had appended his thumb impressions on the same in the presence of Randhir
Singh and thereafter that witness had also put his signatures in the presence
of Sukhdev Singh. It was further stated by the said witness that the draft sale
deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar, Patiala who verified the facts
from Sukhdev Singh and read over the contents to Sukhdev Singh.
Photographs of the vendor, vendee and the witnesses were also taken.
Despite lengthy cross-examination nothing could not be elicited from the
said witness. In the absence of any cogent evidence that the plaintiff-
appellant had weak mental faculties and that the sale deed was the result of
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143253
fraud, no fault can be found with the judgments and decrees passed by both
the Courts.
11. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present
appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises
in the present case. The appeal, being devoid of any merits, is accordingly
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
04.11.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
