Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs Sukhdev Singh And Another on 25 September, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
120 RSA-4906-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on : 10.09.2024
Date of Decision : 25.09.2024
Gurdeep Singh ....Appellant
VERSUS
Sukhdev Singh and Another ....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the appellant.
ALKA SARIN, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the
defendant No.1-appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated
10.05.2018 passed by the Trial Court and the judgment and decree dated
22.07.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1
was decreed.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that according to the
plaintiff-respondent No.1, one Buta Singh was co-owner in possession of land
measuring 23 Kanals 14 Marlas situated at village Mehma Bhagwana, Tehsil
and District Bathinda and on 26.02.1999 the said Buta Singh, through his
attorney Darshan Singh, sold the said land in favour of the plaintiff-
respondent No.1. The sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff-respondent
No.1 and possession of the said land was delivered to him at the spot and
mutation No.1338 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1.
Subsequently, Buta Singh challenged the aforesaid sale deed dated
26.02.1999 by filing a civil suit alleging the same is a result of fraud. The said
integrity of this order/judgment
civil suit was dismissed on 30.07.2008 by the Trial Court and the appeal by
Buta Singh was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 17.04.2009.
Thus, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is the lawful owner of suit land and Buta
Singh was left with no right, title or interest therein. Buta Singh also
challenged the mutation No.1338 before the revenue authorities but the same
was also upheld by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide order
dated 12.10.2001. It was averred that the defendant No.1-appellant, with
ulterior motive and to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff-respondent No.1,
connived with Buta Singh, who has since expired, and manipulated and
prepared a Khangi Will dated 18.12.2010 allegedly executed by Buta Singh
in his favour. On the basis of said forged and fabricated Will dated
18.12.2010, the defendant No.1-appellant got mutation sanctioned in his
favour although the suit land had already been sold by Buta Singh during his
lifetime to the plaintiff-respondent No.1. The defendant No.1-appellant
further sold land measuring 9 Kanals 1 Marla in favour of defendant-
respondent No.2 vide sale deed dated 03.05.2013 though the defendant No.1-
appellant was not competent to alienate the same and said sale deed is illegal,
null and void and without delivery of possession and merely a paper
transaction. Hence, the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
The defendant no.1-appellant contested the suit by raising objections about
maintainability, non-joinder of necessary parties, locus-standi and cause of
action. It was submitted that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 was not in
possession over any portion of suit land or in exclusive possession and that
Buta Singh had never sold the suit land to plaintiff-respondent No.1 through
the alleged attorney Darshan Singh and that Darshan Singh was not competent
to alienate the suit land and no amount of sale consideration was ever paid to
integrity of this order/judgment
Buta Singh. The alleged sale deed dated 26.02.1999 was alleged to being a
fictitious document. The defendant No.1-appellant defended the Will dated
18.12.2010 executed by Buta Singh in his favour. The defendant-respondent
No.2 filed a separate written statement and defended the sale deed in her
favour.
3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed
for ? OPP
1A. Whether Will dated 18.12.2010 duly executed by Buta
Singh in favour of defendant no.1 ? OPD1
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as
prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?
OPD
4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of
court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
6. Whether suit of plaintiff is barred u/s 41 of Specific Relief
Act ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
hands ? OPD
8. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of
action to file the suit ? OPD
9. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit
under Section 13, 34 and 158 of Punjab Land Revenue
Act, 1887 ? OPD
10. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? OPD
11. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct
from filing the suit ? OPD
12. Whether defendant No.2 is bona-fide purchaser ? OPD2
13. Relief.
integrity of this order/judgment
4. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.2018
decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 declaring that he was owner
of the suit land, mutation no.1612 dated 17.10.2012 and sale deed no.878
dated 03.05.2013 were set aside and the defendants were also restrained from
alienating any portion of suit land. Aggrieved by the decision of the Trial
Court two separate appeals were filed - one by the defendant No.1-appellant
and the other by the defendant-respondent No.2. Vide judgment and decree
dated 22.07.2019 both the appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate
Court. Hence, the present regular second appeal by the defendant No.1-
appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1-appellant has
vehemently contended that both the Courts have erred in decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It is urged that the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff-respondent No.1 was illegal and that Buta Singh had bequeathed the
suit land in favour of the defendant No.1-appellant vide Will dated 18.12.2010
and therefore the plaintiff-respondent No.1 could not be declared as owner of
the suit land. It is urged that the defendant No.1-appellant was not a party in
the earlier litigation.
6. Heard.
7. In the present case, Buta Singh was the owner in possession of
the suit land who sold the same to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 vide sale deed
dated 26.02.1999 (Ex.PW4/A). Buta Singh challenged the sale deed
(Ex.PW4/A) on the ground of fraud. However, vide judgment dated
30.07.2008 (Ex.PB) his suit was dismissed. The appeal by Buta Singh was
also dismissed vide judgment dated 17.04.2009 (Ex.PA). Thus, the sale in
favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 stood upheld by the Courts. However,
integrity of this order/judgment
on 18.12.2010, Buta Singh allegedly executed a Will in favour of the
defendant No.1-appellant bequeathing the suit land in his favour. Once Buta
Singh was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land having sold the
same to the plaintiff-respondent No.1, he could not bequeath the same in
favour of the defendant No.1-appellant by executing a Will. A testator can
only validly bequeath what he owns or would own in future but not something
which he once owned and has since sold. That apart, the defendant No.1-
appellant did not even prove the due execution of the Will in his favour.
Neither was the original Will produced in Court nor were its attesting
witnesses examined. The reasoning adopted by the Courts is sound and
equitable and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the
concurrent findings recorded. No other argument has been raised by learned
counsel for the defendant No.1-appellant.
8. In view of the above, no question of law, much less any
substantial question of law, arises in the present case. The appeal being devoid
of any merit is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed off.
( ALKA SARIN )
25.09.2024 JUDGE
jk
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
integrity of this order/judgment
