IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

122 RSA-5955-2019(O&M)

Date of decision: 19.02.2026 Ran Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Satyanarain ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Pardeep Kumar Rapria, Advocate for the appellant.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of land measuring 16 bigha 1 biswa i.e. 1/10^th share of total land measuring 160 bigha 8 biswa as described in the plaint, and as per latest Jamabandi of 1996-97; and further declaration that Sale Deed No.446 dated 30.04.2003; showing transfer of the land measuring 16 bigha 1 biswa in favour of the defendant; and Mutation No.2701 dated 20.06.2003, were wrong, illegal, null and void, based on fraud, and does not create any title in favour of the defendant, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellant in the plaint that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land which is ancestral and co- parcenary in nature. The plaintiff had mortgaged the land in dispute in favour of one Nand Ram for mortgage consideration of Rs.1 lakh vide registered Mortgage Deed dated 03.07.2001. The plaintiff was required to pay interest of Rs.2/- per cent per month on the said mortgage consideration. The plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to discharge his liability and to get the land redeemed. Therefore, the plaintiff had requested the defendant to advance some sum to the plaintiff enabling him to redeem the land in question. It was pleaded that defendant had acceded to the request of the plaintiff and agreed to advance a sum of Rs.84,000/- by way of supplementary mortgage of the land in dispute and also to furnish pronote and receipt. Accordingly, the plaintiff created second charge on the suit land by way of supplementary mortgage as he was in urgent need of funds. It was stated that the defendant paid a sum of Rs.84,000/- in cash at the house on 30.04.2003 and in lieu thereof, he got signatures of the plaintiff on the printed pronote and receipt by saying that the same would be filled after execution and registration of supplementary mortgage deed. The plaintiff in good faith put his signatures on the printed unfilled blank pronote and receipt. It was further pleaded that on 30.04.2003, the defendant brought the plaintiff to the seat of Petition Writer Om Prakash and brought to the plaintiff a document representing it to be supplementary mortgage deed. Believing it to be supplementary mortgage deed, the plaintiff affixed his signature on the said Deed and also on the register of the Petition Writer. It was contended that the contents of the documents were never read over or explained to the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant brought the plaintiff to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani. Even Sub-Registrar, Bhiwani did not read contents of the document but simply asked the plaintiff whether the signature was made by him or not to which, the plaintiff admitted having affixed his signature on the Deed.

3. It was further pleaded that thereafter, on 18.05.2004, the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- being the mortgage consideration and Rs.70,000/- by way of interest) in the Treasury at Bhiwani and filed an application for redemption of mortgage before the Assistant Collector, 1^st Grade, Bhiwani. Vide order dated 15.06.2004, the suit land was redeemed. However, in January 2010, the plaintiff received notice in a Civil Suit titled as “Manjeet Vs. Sat Narain & Ran Singh”; whereupon the plaintiff discovered that son of the plaintiff had challenged the Sale Deed No.446 dated 30.04.2003 and Mutation No.2701 dated 20.06.2003 in respect of the suit land. It was pleaded that it was only then that the plaintiff came to know for the first time regarding the aforesaid Sale Deed. The plaintiff also