[201-2 cases]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH [1] RSA-4-1997 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 14.02.2025 Amarjit Singh (now deceased)

through his LRs and another …Appellants versus Gurmail Singh (now deceased)

through his LRs and others ….Respondents [2] RSA-142-1997 (O&M)

Amarjit Singh (now deceased)

through his LRs …Appellants versus Gurmail Singh (now deceased)

through his LRs and others ….Respondents Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellants (in both the appeals).

Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

[1] By way of instant order, I intend to dispose off these two regular second appeals arising out of the same suit.

[2] For convenience, parties hereinafter are referred to by their original position(s) as in the civil suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs and respondents as defendants.

2025.03.25 17:25 [3] Plaintiffs filed a suit seeking decree of declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 01.07.1988 in favour of defendants qua the suit land as detailed out in the plaint was illegal, null and void and is a forged document. [4] Suit was filed by Amarjit Singh, plaintiff No.1 acting as attorney of plaintiff No.2-Jaswant Singh.

[5] Plaintiffs claimed that they are owners of land measuring 197 kanals 6 marlas. They started residing in Rajasthan about 25 years prior to filing of the suit. 197 kanals 6 marlas of land of their share was leased out to the defendants. On 01.07.1988, defendants got sale deed in their favour by producing someone who misrepresented himself to be the plaintiff.

[6] Suit was contested by the defendants. They supported the sale deed, denying all the allegations levelled in the plaint. In an alternate, they pleaded adverse possession.

[7] On the basis of the pleadings, learned Trial Court framed following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs had executed the sale deed dated

01.07.1988 in favour of the defendants? OPD.

2. Whether the defendants have become the owners of the suit property by adverse possession? OPP

3. Relief. ”

[8] Plaintiffs in order to prove that they never signed the sale deed examined Handwriting Expert (PW-4). Handwriting Expert opined that the signatures on the sale deeds were forged. Learned Trial Court while answering Issue No.1 held that there was no evidence with respect to consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. DW-2/Gulshan Kumar, admitted in his cross-examination that he does not know the attesting witness and the parties to the sale deed. Attesting witness to the sale deed-Roop Singh admitted that he had gone to the houses of Jaswant Singh and Amarjit Singh, plaintiffs, but was not able to tell the age and height of the plaintiffs. Learned Trial Court further relied upon testimony of Jaswant Singh, who appeared as PW-5. Thus, learned Trial Court found that there being ample evidence on record to prove that the sale deed was a result of forgery, answered Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit.

[9] Learned Lower Appellate Court in appeal preferred by the defendants reversed the findings recorded by the Court of the first instance, holding that the two attesting witnesses of sale deed namely Gurdev Singh and Roop Singh have been examined. Both of them proved due execution of sale deed (Exhibit D-1). Both of them proved that the sale deed was read over to the executants by the Scribe as well as Sub Registrar. Both the executants signed the sale deed, admitting its correctness. One of the plaintiffs, Jaswant Singh when confronted with his signatures on sale deed (Exhibit D-1) stated that he cannot say whether his signatures were there at point ‘A’. When confronted with signatures at point mark ‘B’, he admitted his signatures. Referring to the aforesaid overwhelming evidence, Lower Appellate Court held that Trial Court ought not have annulled a registered sale deed in favour of the defendants. Learned Lower Appellate Court thus, reversing the findings recorded by the Court of the first insta