Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 3253
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Pritam Singh - Appellant
Versus
Amar Nath And Others - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 2502 of 1995
Decided On : 26-04-2018
Ashok Jindal, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the sale deed of the appellant did not establish bonafide purchase for valuable consideration as per Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:
Possession - Land Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - Section 41
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs claimed ownership of land and filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendants contested the suit, claiming ownership based on sale deeds. Trial court dismissed the suit for lack of proof of possession. Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal. Appellant challenged the Lower Appellate Court's decision.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the sale deeds presented by the defendants did not establish them as bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs were deemed co-sharers and put in joint holdings. The findings of the Lower Appellate Court were upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for adjudication.
Issues: Ownership of land, possession, entitlement for injunction, maintainability of the suit, bonafide purchaser status, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties
Ratio Decidendi: The sale deed of the appellant did not establish bonafide purchase for valuable consideration as per Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiffs were deemed co-sharers and put in joint holdings. Khasra girdawari did not establish a preferential evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs. A registered document carries a presumption of truth.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J —Appellant-Defendant no.3 is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1995 rendered by the Additional District Judge, whereby, appeal bearing No.25 of 1991 filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.1991, has been allowed.
2. Plaintiff/Respondents instituted the suit claiming declaration to the effect that he has purchased land measuring 5 kanals 15 marlas out of total land measuring 82 kanals 17 marlas situated in village Chhanna Gulab Singh Wali from Mohinder Singh for a sum of Rs.10,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 14.05.1985. The land had fallen to the share of the vendor Mohinder Singh, defendant No.1 in a family settlement. Since the date of purchase of the land in dispute, the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession as its owner. Subsequently, defendant no.2 Naranjan Singh has sold his 4 kanals of land to defendant No.3- Pritam Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.1986. The plaintiffs had already purchased the land by specific khasra number and khasra no. 18//24/2 had previously been purchased by the plaintiff but this specific khasra number had subsequently been sold by defendant no.2-Naranjan Singh also in favour of defendant no.3-Pritam Singh which was illegal, null and void. On the basis of the aforementioned sale deed, ibid, defendant Pritam Singh was threatening to dispossess the plaintiffs from this specific khasra number 13//24/2 (2-18) necessitating filing of suit claiming declaration and permanent injunction.
3. Defendant no.1 did not appear to contest the suit, whereas, defendant no.2 appeared in person and absented later on and proceeded against ex parte. Defendant no.3 contested the suit by filing written statement stating therein that he has purchased the land measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas including the land in dispute bearing khasra no.13/24/2(2-18) from defendant no.2 Naranjan Singh for a sum of Rs.8500/- vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.1986. Possession of the plaintiffs was also denied, rather it was stated that defendant no.3 was in cultivating possession of the land. Even family settlement was also denied. The plea of bonafide purchaser was also taken.
4. Defendant no.1 later on move an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. Thereafter, he filed a written statement stating therein that vide sale deed dated 14.05.1985, he had only sold 0 kanals 11 marlas of land out of the khasra no. 13/24/2(3-11) but plaintiffs fraudulently got recorded in respect of 3 kanals 11 marlas. It was further contended that vide sale deed dated 14.05.1985, he has sold only 2 kanals 15 marlas of land and not 5 kanals 15 marlas as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was in possession of land measuring 2 kanals 5 marlas only.
5. Since the parties were at variance, the trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the plaintiffs exchanged the land in suit vide sale deed dated 14.5.1985? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the land in suit? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the injunction prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD
5. Whether defendant no.2 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration and without notice? OPD
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
7. Relief."
6. The plaintiffs examined Prem Kumar deed writer as PW1, Karam Singh as PW2 and Harbans Lal as PW3 and brought on record the documents as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.PX.
7. On the other hand, defendants examined Pritam Singh defendant as DW1, Major Singh as DW2 and brought on record the documentary evidence as Ex.D1, Ex.D2 to Ex.D5.
8. The trial Court on the basis of evidence prima facie dismissed the suit on the ground that plaintiffs had not been able to prove possession of the suit land. The appeal preferred before the Lower Appellate Court has been allowed. It is in this aspect of the matter, the present appeal has been filed.
9. The present appeal was ad
