In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

Regular Second Appeal No. 2334 of 2018 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.07.2022

Reserved on 27.05.2022

Sewa Singh

... Appellant(s)

Versus

Balwinder Kaur and Others

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Sahil Soi, Advocate

for the appellant(s).

Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate

for the respondent No.1.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

While assailing the concurrent findings of facts, arrived at by

both the Courts below, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

2.

The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the

effect that he along with defendant No.2 and 3 are owners in possession of

the land measuring 6 kanals and 18 marlas, in addition to other land

recorded in their names out of the land comprised in khewat/khatauni No.

189/305-314, as per jamabandi for the year 2008-2009 along with the

declaration that mutation No. 934 sanctioned on the basis of the registered

sale deed dated 21.01.1980, in favour of the plaintiff and his father, is

wrong, for declaring that the order passed by the Assistant Collector Ist

Grade (Tehsildar) Bhulath, District Kapurthala and the Collector-cum-Sub

Divisional Officer (Civil), Bholath, District Kapurthala on 08.11.2013 are

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2022.09.08 15:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Regular Second Appeal No. 2334 of 2018 (O&M)

2

illegal, null and void along with the consequential relief of permanent

injunction restraining the defendants from alienating, transferring or creating

any charge and from taking possession of the land described above.

3.

After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties,

at length, this Court is of the opinion that the following questions of law

arise in the present case:-

“I)

Whether a registered sale deed is required to be attested

by two attesting witnesses?

II)

If the answer to the aforesaid question is in the negative,

then the further question which would arise is whether a

registered sale deed is necessarily required to be proved

by examining the witnesses in the evidence”.

4.

Breifly the facts of the case are that as per the case of the

plaintiff, Sh.Mohinder Singh and Sh.Lakhwant Singh sons of Sh.Jagat

Singh, resident of village Bholath Sharki, Tehsil Bholath, District

Kapurthala, sold the land measuring 6 kanals and 18 marlas through sale

deed executed on 19.01.1980 which was registered on 21.01.1980 in favour

of Sh.Sohan Singh son of Sh.Lal Singh to the extent of half share and in

favour of the plaintiff (Sh.Sewa Singh) to the extent of the remaining half

share. The actual physical possession of the above land was delivered to the

plaintiff and his father Sh.Sohan Singh. It is claimed that the plaintiff along

with the defendant No.2 and 3 are now the owners in possession of the

property. The defendant No.2 and 3 are the plaintiff’s brothers. He also

sought declaration that Late Sh. Lakhwant Singh is left with no share in the

joint khata and the entry in the revenue record in favour of Smt.Balwinder

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ

2022.09.08 15:40

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Regular Second Appeal No. 2334 of 2018 (O&M)

3

Kaur widow of Late Sh.Lakhwant Singh and the ex parte order of partition,

which has been affirmed in appeal, are both illegal. The defendant No.1,

while contesting the suit, has alleged that she is owner of the property and

has no knowledge about any sale deed referred to. In substance, the

defendant No.1 has asserted as under:-

“2.

That para No.2 of the plaint is wrong hence denied. The

plaintiff is beating about the bush and telling a cock and bull

story which has nothing to do with merit of the case. The

defendant has no knowledge about any sale deed referred by

the plaintiff in this para concerning the land in dispute. Had

there been any such genuine sale deed the plaintiff would have

produced before the revenue court in