IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 04.12.2025 Deep Singh ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Rakesh Kumar and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the respondents through V.C.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below, whereby suit filed by the appellant for declaration that Sale Deed dated 08.12.1983 allegedly got executed in favour of the defendant and pertaining to the suit plot, is void and illegal and not executed by the owner/plaintiff and is liable to be set aside; and that the mutation No. 20476 wrongly entered in favour of the defendant on the basis of said alleged sale Deed dated 08.12.1983 is also liable to be set aside; and for permanent injunction; has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellant/plaintiff that Teja Singh, father of the present appellant was owner of vast chunk of land in various khasra numbers within the revenue estate of Taraf Saidan in Hadbast No. 172, presently known as Sunder Nagar, Mahavir Colony, Ludhiana. After the said area was taken into the Municipal limits, plaintiff had sold certain pieces of land; but had kept the suit property for himself maintaining ownership. It was pleaded that on 26.06.1963 when the plaintiff accompanied by his son/the present appellant visited the spot, he found defendant alongwith certain others claiming himself to be owner on the basis of Sale Deed dated 08.12.1983 allegedly executed in his favour by the plaintiff. Plaintiff requested defendant several times to admit his claim, however to no avail. Hence, present suit was filed on 16.07.1993.

3. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the ld. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009. The Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2012 Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff.

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has failed to prove the Sale Deed dated 08.12.1983 allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. The defendant has not produced any attesting witness, or Scribe, or stamp vendor to prove the said Sale Deed. Although learned Trial Court had duly framed issue No.2 in this regard, however, defendant has failed to discharge the onus place upon him to prove the said Sale Deed. Thus, requirement of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act has not been followed.

5. It is further submitted that the utter falsity of the case set up by the defendant is borne out from the fact that the alleged Sale Deed is of the year 1983; whereas defendant had applied for water and electricity connection of the suit property only in the year 1993. Ld. Counsel submits that it is the case of the defendant that he had come into possession of the suit property in the year 1983. It is contended that the suit property being a house, the same could not have been habitable or operational without water and electricity connection. As such, it is clear that defendant has fraudulently prepared the Sale Deed.

6. Learned counsel further submits that appellant had disputed his signature over the alleged Sale Deed; and plaintiff had proved his case by examining PW1 Handwriting Expert P.S.Ahuja who had submitted his report Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 in which he had clearly mentioned that signature of the alleged Sale Deed is different from the admitted signature of the plaintiff Teja Singh. Admittedly, no evidence in rebuttal was led by the defendant. Thus, suit of the plaintiff could not have been dismissed.

7. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Courts below have also er