A registered sale deed is not required to be attested by two witnesses. The primary evidence of a sale deed is the copy retained by the Sub-Registrar. Non-examination of attesting witnesses is not fatal to the case.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kshetarpal, J. - While assailing the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by both the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the effect that he along with defendant No.2 and 3 are owners in possession of the land measuring 6 kanals and 18 marlas, in addition to other land recorded in their names out of the land comprised in khewat/khatauni No. 189/305-314, as per jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 along with the declaration that mutation No. 934 sanctioned on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 21.01.1980, in favour of the plaintiff and his father, is wrong, for declaring that the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (Tehsildar) Bhulath, District Kapurthala and the Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bholath, District Kapurthala on 08.11.2013 are illegal, null and void along with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or creating any charge and from taking possession of the land described above.

3. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length, this Court is of the opinion that the following questions of law arise in the present case:-

"I) Whether a registered sale deed is required to be attested by two attesting witnesses?

II) If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative, then the further question which would arise is whether a registered sale deed is necessarily required to be proved by examining the witnesses in the evidence".

4. Breifly the facts of the case are that as per the case of the plaintiff, Sh.Mohinder Singh and Sh.Lakhwant Singh sons of Sh.Jagat Singh, resident of village Bholath Sharki, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala, sold the land measuring 6 kanals and 18 marlas through sale deed executed on 19.01.1980 which was registered on 21.01.1980 in favour of Sh.Sohan Singh son of Sh.Lal Singh to the extent of half share and in favour of the plaintiff (Sh.Sewa Singh) to the extent of the remaining half share. The actual physical possession of the above land was delivered to the plaintiff and his father Sh.Sohan Singh. It is claimed that the plaintiff along with the defendant No.2 and 3 are now the owners in possession of the property. The defendant No.2 and 3 are the plaintiff's brothers. He also sought declaration that Late Sh. Lakhwant Singh is left with no share in the joint khata and the entry in the revenue record in favour of Smt.Balwinder Kaur widow of Late Sh.Lakhwant Singh and the ex parte order of partition, which has been affirmed in appeal, are both illegal. The defendant No.1, while contesting the suit, has alleged that she is owner of the property and has no knowledge about any sale deed referred to. In substance, the defendant No.1 has asserted as under:-

"2. That para No.2 of the plaint is wrong hence denied. The plaintiff is beating about the bush and telling a cock and bull story which has nothing to do with merit of the case. The defendant has no knowledge about any sale deed referred by the plaintiff in this para concerning the land in dispute. Had there been any such genuine sale deed the plaintiff would have produced before the revenue court in partition proceedings. The plaintiff did not bother about the partition proceedings of the land and now the plaintiff is telling a long story which has no concern with the land of the defendant, since 21.01.1980, the plaintiff kept sleeping and now the suit is barred by limitation".

5. The defendant No.2 and 3 have supported the case of the plaintiff.

6. On appreciation of the pleadings, the trial Court has culled out the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locu