RSA No. 3869 of 2004 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3869 of 2004
Date of Decision: 31.8.2009
Gurnam Kaur ......Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Singh and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Shri S.K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondents.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the
judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby
her suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming property of
Hazara Singh, her father, was dismissed.
The plaintiff challenged the registered gift deed dated
27.2.1968 allegedly executed by Hazara Singh in favour of defendant Nos.
1, 2 and 3 and the subsequent mutation sanctioned on 16.8.1994. Hazara
Singh, father of the plaintiff died on 28.7.1977. He had three daughters i.e.,
the present plaintiff-Gurnam Kaur, Harnam Kaur and Isro. The plaintiff
claimed the estate of Hazara Singh, as a natural heir by challenging gift
deed dated 28.2.1968 alleging the same to be forged and fabricated
document.
RSA No. 3869 of 2004 (2)
The learned trial Court decreed the suit, whereas the first
Appellate Court accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit, inter-alia, on the
ground that the challenge to the gift deed has been made after the expiry of
the period of limitation and that the plaintiff did not challenge the same
even 20 years after the death of Hazara Singh in the year 1977. Thus, the
suit was held to be barred by limitation. The first Appellate Court also
found the plea of the plaintiff regarding the gift deed being forged and
fabricated, not tenable on the ground that the said document is attested and
registered and, therefore, proved to be executed .
In the present second appeal, the following substantial question
of law was framed by this Court on 2.3.2006:-
“Whether the gift deed dated 27.2.1968 (Ex. D.1) can
be made a valid basis for dismissing the claim of the
plaintiff-appellant because mutation in respect of the
gift deed was sanctioned in the year 1994?”
The finding recorded by the learned first Appellate Court that
the suit is barred by limitation cannot be said to be sustainable as the
plaintiff has claimed the estate of Hazara Singh by inheritance. Since the
suit was on the basis of title, it was governed by Article 65 of the Limitation
Act and therefore, such suit cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
Similarly, the fact that the mutation has been sanctioned in
1994 is again no ground to return a finding that the suit is barred by
limitation. The mutation is not a document of title. Such entries are only
for the purposes of land revenue. Therefore, even if the mutation is not
sanctioned soon after the gift deed is executed, the same is not sufficient to
return a finding that the gift deed executed is forged and fabricated
document.
RSA No. 3869 of 2004 (3)
The learned first Appellate Court has rightly found that the
plaintiff has not set up any pleadings in respect of particulars of fraud. No
evidence has been led to support the allegations that such gift deed is a
fraudulent or a forged document. In the absence of such pleading or
evidence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the gift deed is a forged document merely on the ground that the mutation
was sanctioned in the year 1994, is not tenable in the eyes of law.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material
irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to
any substantial question of law in the present second appeal.
Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
31-08-2009
ds