RSA-448-2017

neutral citation no. 2023:PHHC:049155

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-448-2017

Reserved on: 22.12.2022

Pronounced on: March, 29, 2022

Ashok Ahuja and another

....Appellants

vs.

Prem Chand Bidhuri (since deceased) thr. LRs.

and others

…..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present:

Mr. J.S. Mehndiratta, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr. Aman Priye Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1

Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.2.

*****

HARKESH MANUJA J.

By way of present appeal, challenge has been made at the

instance of appellants-plaintiffs to the judgment and decree dated

14.10.2016 passed by the court of learned Additional District Judge,

Gurgaon reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2013 passed by

the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon.

2.

The facts of the case as pleaded at the instance of appellants-

plaintiffs in their plaint are that the plaintiffs having intended to purchase

some farm land, approached one Harbans Mahajan who was dealing in

properties. Keeping in mind the aforesaid purpose, Harbans Mahajan

entered into an agreement to sell dated 14.03.1986 qua 34 kanals-8 marlas

of land situated in Village Bhondsi, District Gurgaon with its owners,

namely, Raghbir Singh, Mahabir Singh & Ram Karan. Besides it, even a

GPA dated 14.03.1986 was also got executed in favour of one Ved

Parkash Kaushik by the original owners authorizing him to alienate the suit

SANJAY GUPTA

2023.04.11 14:27

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA-448-2017

neutral citation no. 2023:PHHC:049155

2

property. In addition, on the same day i.e. on 14.3.1986 one registered

lease deed was also executed in favour of respondent No.2/defendant No.2

qua the same land for a period of 90 years with Rs.1000/- as lease amount

per annum. It is important to note here that General Power of Attorney

holder Ved Parkash Kauhsik was an employee of Harbans Mahajan and

defendant No.2 happened to be the cousin of Harbans Mahajan. It was

further pleaded in the plaint that three different sale deeds as detailed

herein below were executed on behalf of the original owners through their

general power of attorney holder-Ved Parkash Kaushik, in favour of

appellants-plaintiffs regarding the entire suit property measuring 34 kanals

08 marlas:-

Sr.

No.

Sale deed

dated

Purchaser Area

Sale

consideration

1.

08.04.1986 Appellant

No.2

10 kanals 6

marlas

Rs.30,000/-

2.

17.04.1986 Appellant

No.1

13 kanals 15

marlas

Rs.40,000/-

3.

07.05.1986 Appellant

No.1

10 kanals 6

marlas

Rs.30,000/-

3.

It was also pleaded in the plaint that the possession of land in

question was handed over to the purchaser i.e. the appellants/plaintiffs by

the vendors/owners. In the plaint, reference was also made to an affidavit

dated 10.05.1988 furnished by respondent No.2/defendant No.2 stating

that the lease deed dated 14.03.1986 executed in his favor was in fact a

sham transaction just to safeguard the rights of the purchasers from being

challenged by the other co-sharers asserting their peremptory rights. In the

plaint, it was further stated that taking advantage of the aforesaid lease

deed dated 14.03.1986, respondent No.2/defendant No.2 executed a

SANJAY GUPTA

2023.04.11 14:27

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA-448-2017

neutral citation no. 2023:PHHC:049155

3

transfer deed dated 23.06.2005 pertaining to the leasehold rights in favour

of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 by using threat and coercion & based

thereupon he was trying to interfere in possession, compelling the

appellants/plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration seeking their ownership

based on their registered sale deed as well as challenging the lease deed

dated 14.03.1986 executed in favour of respondent No.