Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bishan Singh vs Sadhu Singh (Now Deceased) Thr Lrs on 6 March, 2025
RSA-2596-2022 (O&M) Page 1 of 4
IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
115 RSA-2596-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 06.03.2025
Bishan Singh ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sadhu Singh (now deceased) through his LRs ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Ms. Kamla Malik, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.
***
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby the suit of
the plaintiff seeking declaration that the plaintiff is owner of Mini Bus No.
PB-07P-7477 on the basis of Affidavit of Sale dated 21.04.2012 executed
by defendant in favour of the plaintiff; and suit for mandatory injunction
directing the defendant to hand over the possession of the said Bus; and
suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling and
plying it, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
2. Learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the
appellant/plaintiff inter-alia, submits that the defendant had sold the
above said mini bus to the plaintiff along with route permit on 06.01.2012
for an amount of Rs.8 lacs. It is submitted that on 06.01.2012 itself, the
plaintiff had paid Rs.4 lacs to the defendant, upon which the defendant
had executed Power of Attorney in favour of the plaintiff for plying the
above said bus on the route. It is contended that as such, since 06.01.2012
the plaintiff is in possession of the suit bus along with route permit. The
plaintiff had made payment of the balance sale consideration of Rs.4 lacs
to the defendant on 21.04.2012, upon which Affidavit of Sale (Ex.P2) was
also executed in favour of the plaintiff. The Affidavit (Ex.P2) shows that
the defendant/respondent had sold the mini bus to the plaintiff and had
received the entire sale consideration. Further it is mentioned in the
Affidavit that after the sale of the vehicle, the appellant/plaintiff namely
Bishan Singh would be responsible for all intents and purposes. It is
submitted that the plaintiff had led cogent comprehensive evidence in the
form of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5, which are the registers maintained by the
appellant, through which the appellant's possession of the mini bus is
proved on record. The plaintiff had even produced the photographs of the
bus Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 to show that bus was plying under the name of
"Khalsa Bus Services". Thus, on the basis of oral and documentary
evidence, it is proved that the mini bus in dispute was purchased by the
appellant/plaintiff. However, the respondent in connivance with the police
had taken possession of the above said mini bus forcefully and wrongfully.
These facts have not been considered by the learned Courts below while
passing the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. No other argument is raised on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and
perused the case file in great detail.
5. I find no merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of the
appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff has relied upon the Power of Attorney
(Ex.P1). Perusal thereof shows that (Ex.P1) does not mention any
Agreement for sale of the bus in question; or transfer of Rs.4 lacs from the
plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The Power of Attorney even does not
authorise the plaintiff to ply the bus. It does not mention anything about
the sale and receipt of half sale consideration by defendant, rather shows
that the plaintiff has no right to get the bus or route permit transferred.
6. Even alleged Affidavit of Sale (Ex.P2) also relied upon by the
plaintiff states that plaintiff has not made any such purchase of bus from
the defendant. As such, it does not support the case of the plaintiff in any
manner. Moreover, the plaintiff has examined only one witness i.e. PW2
Stamp Vendor, who did not make any statement except stating that he
had sold the stamp paper in question. No witness was produced by the
plaintiff to establish that plaintiff had paid Rs.8 lacs to the defendant. Even
no financial record was produced by the plaintiff to show that any such
amount was transferred by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant; or
even any bank account statements which could reveal that the plaintiff
had withdrawn Rs.4 lacs on two occasions.
7. On the contrary, the defendant produced DW1 Sukhwinder
Kaur who placed on record the copy of legal notice dated 17.12.2012
(Ex.D5), as per which the alleged Power of Attorney (Ex.P1) executed in
favour of the plaintiff, stood cancelled. It has further been found by
learned Courts below that till date, registration certificate of the minibus
in question stood first in the name of the defendant, and after his demise
in the name of his LRs. The defendant also produced Affidavit dated
21.04.2012 (Ex.D2) of the plaintiff himself, where he had conceded that he
had not purchased the mini bus in question. The plaintiff has also not
disputed his signatures on this Affidavit.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff is unable to dispute
or controvert the above said facts and findings.
9. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.
10. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
06.03.2025 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
