IMPORTANT POINT
Registration--Mere registration of the sale deed cannot operate to pass the title to the vendee--Does not pass any interest to them in the property purported to have been passed to him
Public document--What constitute to be--Sale deed or its certified copy--Cannot be construed as a public document--Execution there of--To be proved by leading evidence.
Admission--An admission is not a convulsive as to the truth of a matter stated therein--Can only be used as a piece of evidence -To be appreciated by the court and the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made.

A.N.Jindal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents (herein referred as the plaintiffs) against the judgment dated 20.8.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kurukshetra, was accepted and the suit was decreed.

2. The allegations as set out are that Kaushalya Devi, mother of the plaintiffs, had purchased land measuring 79 kanals 12 marlas, being 1/4 share of the land measuring 106 kanals 3 marlas, vide registered sale deed dated 7.1.1967, situated within the revenue estate of village Dhurala, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. On the same day, the above said land was leased out by its earlier owners namely Kewal Krishan, Rajinder Krishan sons of Dwarka Dass and Smt. Kaushalya Devi widow of Dwarka Dass, for a period of 20 years i.e. from Rabi 1967 to Kharif 1987 and the possession was delivered to the defendant No. 1 as lessee. Similarly, plaintiff No. 1, Prem Nath and Kaushalya Devi his mother also purchased 5/25 share out of the land measuring 206 kanals 3 marlas as fully detailed in the plaint. Accordingly, defendant No. 1 started paying lease money to Kaushalya Devi as well as the plaintiff No. 1 and paid lease amount up to Rabi, 1980 against receipts. Kaushalya Devi died on 9.6.1980 leaving behind the plaintiffs as her legal heirs. Thereafter, the defendant No. 1 stopped paying the lease money to the plaintiffs. Later on, taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs from the village, started claiming ownership over the suit land and filed civil suit No. 655 dated 6.3.1987 against Kewal Krishan and Rajinder Krishan, claiming ownership over the suit land by way of adverse possession, and obtained an ex-parte decree dated 10.2.1988 on wrong pleadings, as such the same is not binding upon the proprietary rights of the plaintiffs and does not confer any right or title upon the defendant No. 1. In his written statement, the defendant while contesting the suit set up a plea regarding adverse possession stating that he is in peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit land without payment of rent to anybody including the plaintiffs or their predecessors Kewal Krishan etc. sons of Dwarka Dass. The plaintiffs and everybody in the village was in the knwoledge of his interrupted continuous possession which has now ripped into ownership. In the alternative, he set up the plea that he is inlawful possession of the land as lessee. He also pleaded that the suit is time barred; not maintainable having not been filed by the duly authorised person and the decree passed in his favour is binding upon Kewal Krishan, Rajinder Krishan, Kaushalya Rani and their successors. Malook Singh was not authorised to file the suit to challlenge the decree. On merits, it was submitted that the sale deeds in queestion were executed in favour of the plaintiff and his mother were sham transactions in order to save the land being declared as surplus.

3. Replications have also been filed. In the wake of the various pleas raised by the parties, the following issues were framed :-

1. Whether Malook Singh is duly authorised general attorney of plaintiff ? OPP

2. Whether the judgment and decree dated 10.2.1988 passed in civil suit No. 655 of 1987 are null and void as alleged ? OPP

3. If issue No. 1 is proved, then whether the plaintiffs are entitled for joint possession of the suit land as alleged ? OPP

4. Whether defendant No. 1 has become owner of the suit land by way of adverse possession ? OPD

5. Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit ? OPD

6. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

7. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD

8. Whether plaintiffs have got no locus-standi to file the suit ? OPD

9. Relief.

4. In support of their case, the plaintiffs examined Krishna Singla, H.R.C. Registrar Office, Kurukshetra