IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2025 Sonu Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Sher Singh and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Prashant Singh Chauhan, 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 the suit preferred by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction that the plaintiff along with performa defendant No. 4 is owner in possession of the half share of the suit land (as described in the plaint) to the extent of equal share each; whereas performa defendant No. 5 is owner in possession of half share of the suit land; and sale deed bearing vasika No. 815 dated 30.07.1990 executed by contesting defendant No. 1 in favour of contesting defendant No.2 as well as mutation No. 3826 be declared as null and void being procured illegally and fraudulently; and sale deed bearing vasika No. 689 dated 15.06.2009 and mutation No. 5440 dated 29.11.2009 be also declared null and void having been procured on the basis of fraud, collusion and misrepresentation. A further decree of permanent injunction was sought restraining the contesting defendant No. 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the plaintiff over the suit land.

2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant is the ‘plaintiff’; and the respondents are the ‘defendants’.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of the Civil Court judgment and decree dated 30.08.1991 Ex. PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. On the other hand, the defendants are laying claim to the suit property on the basis of sale deeds alleged to have been executed in their favour by defendant No.1 who is father of the plaintiff, namely, Sher Singh. Learned counsel contends that Sher Singh never got executed the alleged sale deed dated 30.07.1990 in favour of defendant No.2. Sher Singh never appeared before the Sub Registrar, Mohindergarh and he had not received any sale consideration. It is alleged that defendant No.2 produced someone else on behalf of Sher Singh and fraudulently procured sale deed No. 815 dated 30.07.1990 in his favour. Thus the sale deed is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and the performa defendants. Learned counsel contends that however, in passing the impugned judgments and decrees, the learned Courts below have failed to take into account this fact.

4. No other argument is raised on behalf of the plaintiff.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the case file in great detail.

6. I do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff. The correct facts as borne out from the record are that no right accrues to the plaintiff. To establish this, it is necessary to appreciate the following facts:-

Rawat Singh Mahipal Singh Sher Singh (Defendant No.1)

(proforma Defendant No.5)

Uday Singh Sonu Singh (proforma Defendant No.4) (Plaintiff)

17. Sher Singh was the owner in possession of land measuring 4 Kanal 14 Marlas alongwith some agricultural land. The plaintiff has laid title to the suit property on the basis of the consent decree dated 30.08.1991 Ex. PW4/A Ex.PW4/B. However, it is pertinent to note that prior to the passing of the above said consent decree dated 30.8.1991, Sher Singh had sold his share of the suit land to Pratap Singh/defendant No.2 vide sale deed No. 815 dated 30.07.1990 Ex.PB for a sale consideration of Rs.11,000/- in respect of which mutation No. 3826 Ex.D was sanctioned. Pratap Singh/defendant No.2 further sold the said suit property vide sale deed No. 689 dated 15.06.2009 to Smt. Anuradha/defendant No.3 for a sale consideration of Rs.3,30,000/- in respect of which mutation No. 5440 dated

29.11.2009 Ex.DB was duly sanctioned. Thereafter, by way of 3rd sale deed