Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 1211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh
RSA No.518 of 2010 (O&M)
Jagmohan Singh & Ors.
v.
Mohinder Singh & Anr.
{Decided on 21/09/2015}
For the Appellants:Mr.Puneet Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Parambir Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate.
Headnote:Sale Deed--Title is conferred by the sale deed and if sale is proved then non-sanctioning of mutation becomes irrelevant.
Sale Deed--It is permissible for court to find out as to which area was sold through sale deed from boundaries mentioned therein even in absence of mentioning of khasra numbers.
(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882--Sale Deed--Conferring of Title--Title is conferred by the sale deed and if sale is proved then non-sanctioning of mutation becomes irrelevant. (Para 15)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882--Sale Deed--Absence of Khasra Numbers--If there is omission of khasra Nos. in sale deed, the Court could always record the findings of facts as to whether the sale was out of the disputed khasra nos. since the boundaries of the said area are mentioned in the sale deed--Held; it is permissible for court to find out as to which area was sold through sale deed from boundaries mentioned therein even in absence of khasra numbers. (Para 17)
(C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882--Sale Deed--Suit for declaration--It was proved that original land owner had sold the area of the kothi in the year 1961, even though mutation was not sanctioned and khasra number were not mentioned in sale deed--Held; once original land owner had sold area in 1961, his successor were left with no title which they could sell to plaintiffs vide sale deeds in 1982 and 1983--Predecessors of defendant had become owners--Decree for possession, declaration and injunction granted by courts below in favour of plaintiffs, set aside-- Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34. (Paras 20 & 21)
Mr. Kuldip Singh, J.: - Impugned in the present regular second appeal is the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, affirming the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2006, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalandhar, vide which the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are exclusive owners of the suit land on the basis of the sale deeds dated 26.8.1983 and 22.2.1982 Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 and are in possession of the same except khasra No.822/1 and 823/2. As a consequential relief, the defendants were restrained from denying the rights and title of the plaintiffs over the suit property in any manner and decree for possession of area measuring 0K 19 marla out of khasra No.822/1 and 823/2 of the suit property was also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
2. The short controversy between the parties is that according to the plaintiffs Mohinder Singh and Daljit Kaur, they had purchased the suit land out of khasra No.822/1(0-2), out of khasra No.823/2(0-10), out of khasra No.499(0-18), out of khasra No.643/1 (0-18), out of khasra No.642(0-5) through sale deed dated 26.8.1983. The land is situated in village Khurdpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. Through another sale deed dated 22.2.1982, land out of Khasra No.643/2(0-2), out of khasra No.643/1(0-9), out of khasra No.644, 822/1, 823/2, 499 and 642, bearing 1/3rd share out of land measuring 9 kanal 12 marla i.e. 3 kanal 4 marla was purchased from Ajmer Kaur widow of Kartar Singh and Gurmit Kaur d/o Kartar Singh. Defendants have no concern with the property in dispute in any manner. Their predecessor was licencee of the original owner and are denying title of the plaintiffs and threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs.
3. On the other hand, in the written statement, the stand of the defendants is that originally, Kartar Singh was the owner of the entire suit land. Said Kartar Singh constructed a Kothi in the portion of his land, which was also four walled by him. Kartar Singh sold the said Kothi to Tara Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 10.6.1961. After the death of Tara Singh, his legal heirs Bachan Singh, Pritam Singh and Mehra Singh became the absolute owners of the said Kothi. Ajmer Kaur, Gurmit Kaur and Surjit Kaur had no right or interest in the property in question. Therefore, they could not sell the same. The allegation that defendants are threatening the plaintiffs to take forcible possession was also denied. From the pleadings, following issues were framed:-
1.Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP
3. If issue No.1 and 2 are proved then, whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit property? OPP
4.Whether the defendant is owner of the part of suit property vide sale deed dated 10.5.61? OPD
5.Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
6.Relief
4. Lower Court took up issue No.1 and 4 together and decided the same against the defendants. Issue No.2 and 3 were also decided against the defendants. Onus to prove issue No.5 was placed on defendants but same was not pressed during the course of arguments so it decided in favour of the plaintiffs and consequently impugned judgment and decree was passed.
5. The findings were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalndhar vide the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the file.
7. Out of the law points, mentioned in para No.15 of the grounds of appeal, the following substantial law point is framed for disposal of the present appeal:-
“Whether the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse, against the record and based on erroneous interpretation of the documents and the law?”
8. The perusal of the lower Court judgment shows that the lower Court has
