Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwinder Singh vs Satnam Singh And Ors on 19 November, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150289
113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA-3041-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 07.11.2024
Pronounced on : 19.11.2024
Balwinder Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Satnam Singh & Ors. ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. G. S. Jagpal, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant No.1-appellant challenging the judgments and decrees dated
11.05.2017 and 10.04.2019 passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court, respectively.
2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 filed the present suit for declaration that he is co-sharer
(joint owner in possession) to the extent of 10K-15M and defendants are
co-sharers (joint owner in possession) to the extent of 15K-14M in land
measuring 26K-9M situated at Village Bahadurke, Tehsil Jagraon, District
Ludhiana with a consequential relief of partition and separate possession and
for mense profits for use and occupation of land measuring 10K-15M or in
the alternative suit for joint possession of land measuring 10K-15M on the
basis of joint ownership of the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It was pleaded that
one Fauja Singh son of Gopal Singh was the father of defendants No.1 and 2
and husband of defendant No.3 and the said Fauja Singh was the son of
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150289
sister of the mother of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and remained sarpanch
of the village. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is a poor person and Fauja
Singh was an influential person and was in position to the exercise undue
influence on the plaintiff-respondent No.1. On 05.11.1965 the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 sold to Fauja Singh land measuring 16K-0M out of 26K-
19M vide a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 400/- and thus
Fauja Singh became co-sharer in the land to the extent of 16K-0M and
plaintiff-respondent No.1 became co-sharer to the extent of 10K-19M. Fauja
Singh got sanctioned mutation No.180 on 29.12.1966 of land measuring
16K-0M as per the sale deed dated 05.11.1965 in his favour but this
mutation was not reflected and incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year
1972-73. In November 2010 the plaintiff-respondent No.1 came to know
that on 12.05.1980 Fauja Singh had again got sanctioned a mutation No.223
in his favour on the basis of sale deed dated 05.11.1965 but this mutation
was for land measuring 26K-18M instead of 16K-0M sold in his favour and
the said mutation No.223 was null and void ab-initio qua land to the extent
of 10K-18M of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and did not confer any right on
Fauja Singh or the defendants. Fauja Singh had committed an offence of
forgery by getting the mutation sanctioned in excess of the land sold to him.
As per the plaintiff-respondent No.1 the defendants have illegally and
forcibly cultivated the share of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and have not
furnished the accounts of income from the share of the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 in suit land for the last 10 years prior to filing the present suit. Hence,
the suit. The defendants contested the suit and filed written statement raising
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150289
preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of action,
estoppel, valuation, concealment, etc. On merits it was averred that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 had executed and registered the sale deed on
05.11.1965 in favour of Fauja Singh not of land measuring 16K-0M but of
his entire share i.e. 26K-19M for a consideration of Rs.400/- and Fauja
Singh had become the owner in possession of land measuring 26K-19M and
that the entire land measuring 26K-19M was mutated on the name of Fauja
Singh. It was denied that forgery of any kind was committed by Fauja Singh
and submitted that since 05.11.1965 Fauja Singh was the owner in
possession of the entire land measuring 26K-19M and after his death the
defendants had become the owners in possession by way of natural
inheritance. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a replication reiterating the
contents of the plaint and denying the averments made in the written
statement.
3. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits for
use and occupation of land measuring 10K-15M as
prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of joint
possession of land measuring 10K-15M as prayed
for?OPP
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable? OPD
5. Whether the plaint is barred by law of
limitation?OPD
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150289
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file
the present suit ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his acts and
conduct to file the present suit ? OPD
8. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly
valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ?
OPD
9. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court
with clean hands ? OPD
10. Relief.
4. Vide judgement and decree dated 11.05.2017 the Trial Court
partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 granting him the
reliefs of declaration and joint possession. The reliefs of separate possession,
partition and mesne profits were declined. Aggrieved by the same an appeal
was preferred by the defendants which appeal was dismissed by the First
Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 10.04.2019. Hence, the
present regular second appeal which has been preferred by defendant No.1
alone.
5. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1-appellant would
contend that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1. It is urged that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 had
knowingly sold the entire land measuring 26K-19M to Fauja Singh and
therefore the Fauja Singh was correctly recorded as owner of the entire land.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case both the Courts have found that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 had executed the sale deed qua part of the suit land in
favour of Fauja Singh. According to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 he had
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150289
sold only 16 Kanal 0 Marla to Fauja Sigh whereas according to the
defendants the entire land measuring 26 Kanal 19 Marla was sold to Fauja
Singh. The Courts found that the evidence on the record proved that the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 had actually executed the sale deed dated
05.11.1965 in favour of Fauja Singh for land measuring 16 Kanal 0 Marla.
The evidence led by the defendant No.1-appellant does not inspire
confidence in the face of the documentary evidence led by the plaintiff-
respondent No.1. No cogent and reliable evidence has been shown to the
Court by the learned counsel which would establish that the plaintiff-
respondent No.1 had actually sold the entire land measuring 26 Kanal 19
Marla to Fauja Singh. This Court finds no reason to differ from the findings
returned by both the Courts. No other point was argued.
8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case which requires
determination by this Court. The present appeal, being devoid of any merit,
is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed
off.
19.11.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
5 of 5
