JUDGMENT
Jasbir Singh, J.
1. Respondent No. l filed a suit for declaration, claiming that decree dated 24.12.1987 titled as Rupinder Goldi versus Haqiqat Rai and Ors. and subsequent sale, in execution of that judgment and decree, of house bearing No. 21 Gali No. 2, Central Town Jalandhar, be declared void being illegal and mala fide. It was his case that the judgment and decree and subsequent sale was a result of fraud committed upon him by the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. l is a Non Resident Indian and had been residing in England for decades, when above mentioned judgment and decree was passed. It was his case that he was owner of the house, in dispute. Respondent No. 3 was his brother-in-law (wife’s brother), who had rented out the house in question to the appellant. Since he was residing in U.K., he had asked respondent No. 3 to look after his properties at Jalandhar. Respondent No. 3, in connivance with appellant and respondent No. 2, with a view to usurp his house, got filed a suit from respondent No. 2 against his son Haqiqat Rai, his wife and two of his daughters, for recovery of Rs. 80,000/- towards price of dowry allegedly given at the time of marriage to Haqiqat Rai by parents of respondent No. 2. It was further averred by respondent No. l that he, his son and other relations were never served in the said suit. Exparte decree was manipulated and thereafter, house was sold for a paltry amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- in favour of the appellant. It was his positive case that the appellant was tenant in the property, in dispute. By stating that the decree as well as the sale certificate were obtained by keeping him in dark, it was prayed that the ex parte decree dated 24.12.1987 and sale certificate issued subsequent thereto, be set aside, being void. Respondent No. l has further stated that in fact, no marriage had taken place on 3.1.1982 between respondent No. 2 and his son Haqiqat Rai, who was not even in India on the said date. As such, under these circumstances, there was no question of giving any dowry articles whatsoever, as alleged by respondent No. 2 in her suit. At the relevant time, when the suit was filed, it was to the knowledge of respondent No. 2 that neither respondent No. l nor his son, wife and other relations were living in house, in dispute. Respondent No. l has further stated that he neither received any notice of the suit nor of the execution application. He came to know about the said ex parte decree and the subsequent sale of his house on 29.9.1993 from the appellant. Thereafter, he conducted enquiry and came to know about entire fraud, and filed the present suit. His suit was contested by the appellant and also by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was positive case of the appellant that he was a bonafide purchaser for consideration, as such, sale in his favour, was protected. It was admitted by the appellant that he was tenant in the house, in dispute, which he had taken on rent from one Ravi Raj and not from respondent No. 3. It was specifically averred that respondent No. 3 has no concern whatsoever with the appellant. After contest, suit was decreed. Trial Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1987, passed in favour of respondent No. 2, consequent sale in favour of the appellant was also set aside and it was ordered that he shall continue to be a tenant in the property, in dispute. Appellant was restrained from alienating the property, in dispute. Appellant went in appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2002. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal.
2. Shri M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Alka Sarin, Advocate appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant has nothing to do so far as the dispute and controversy amongst the respondents is concerned. He was a bonafide purchaser for consideration and as such, sale in his favour, is protected under law. It was further argued that once, in execution of a decree, auction sale had been confirmed in favour of the appellant, the same cannot be nulled even if subsequent thereto the said judgment and decree were recalled/set aside. To support his contention, learned Senior counsel has placed reliance upon judgments of this Hon’ble Supreme Court in Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh and Anr. , Sardar Govindrao Mahadik and Anr. v. Devi Sahai and Ors., and Chinnammal and Ors. v. P. Arumugham and Anr. .
3. After hearing counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the present Regular Second Appeal deserves dismissal.
4. There is no dispute so far as proposition of law, as enunciated by their Lordships of Supreme Court in above mentioned judgments is concerned. However, facts of the present case are such that the ratio of judgments, referred to above is not applicable.
5. It is apparent from the records that respondent No. l, when suit was filed against him, had been residing in U.K. for the last many decades alongwith his son and other family members. Suit was filed by respondent No. 2 against his son giving address of the present house, in dispute, knowing fully well that none of the family members had been residing at that place. Decree was passed ex-parte on 24.12.1987. Thereafter, in execution thereof, house, in dispute, was purchased by the appellant.
6. Both the courts below, on appraisal of evidence on record, have found it, as a matter of fact that the judgment and decree were noting but an act of fraud committed by respondent No. 2 against respondent No. l and his family members. In fact, no marriage had taken place between respondent No. 2 and son of respondent No. l on 3.1.1982, as alleged, when earlier suit was filed. It has also come on record that at the time when it was alleged, that marriage had taken place, respondent No. l had not come to India and even as per admitted evidence on record, he was not present in the ceremony, allegddly shown as marriage between his son and respondent No. 2. Both the courts below had firmly opined that there was no question of handling over of any dowry articles to respondent No. l, as such, decree passed towards price of dowry articles, on 24.12.1987 was set aside, being result of fraud. Both the Courts have further opined that as the decree was a nullity, as such, subsequent proceedings of sale of the house, in dispute, were not sustainable.
7. At the time of arguments, necessary documents were submitted for perusal of this Court. A perusal of plaint shows that respondent No. l had specifically stated in para 2 that respondent No. 3, his brother-in-law, had rented out the house, in dispute, to the appellant. It has further been stated that he came to know about ex-parte judgment and decree and also sale of the house from the appellant on 29.9.1993, when he came to India. In his written statement, appellant had stated that he has nothing to do with respondent No. 3 Shri Ram Rattan Bagga. House, in dispute, was rented out to him by one Ravi Raj and not by respondent No. 3, as alleged in the plaint. It has specifically been stated in para 4 of the written statement that he has no concern so far as respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Rupinder Goldly and Ram Rattan Bagga are concerned. Entire house, in dispute, was in his occupation as a tenant. Ravi Raj and respondent No. I/plaintiff had no connection or concern whatsoever with the house and also the appellant was not a tenant under respondent No. 1. It was further averred by the appellant that he never informed respondent No. l regarding exparte decree and sale of house in the year 1993, as alleged by him in the plaint. By stating that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration, in written statement, it was prayed by the appellant that the suit be dismissed.
8. This Court is of the opinion that as per averments in written statement, appellant made an attempt to create an impression that he never knew respondent No. I/the plaintiff. It was his positive case that he had taken the house on rent from one Ravi Raj. However, truth has come out when he made deposition as DW before the trial Court, in his cross examination, he has admitted that at the time of marriage, as referred to above, respondent No. l, alongwith his family members, was residing with him in the house, in dispute. He further admitted that he had been vacating one room for them as when they had been coming to his place. Indirectly it was also admitted by him that the house, in dispute, was given on rent to him by respondent No. 3. He tried to change his stand by stating in his statement that actually, the property was taken on rent by his brother Madan Lal and both of them had been residing in the house from very inception of the tenancy.
9. Facts, referred to above, clearly indicates that respondent No. 1/plaintiff was known to the appellant. In his written statement and also in his deposition made before the trial Court, appellant has not said a word as to whether he has made any attempt to know from respondent No. 1 as to under what circumstances, judgment and decree were passed against him. Merely by saying that he is a bona fide purchaser, he cannot be presumed to be so. He was residing in the house as a tenant, owner was known to him, their relations were good, under these circumstances, it was necessary for him to know from respondent No. l or from Ravi Raj or from respondent No. 3, as to why they have not appeared before trial Court when judgment and decree were passed against them. He has not said a single word as to what efforts the appellant has made to know the exact situation under which house, in which he was living, was put to auction. Initially, in this written statement, he has tried to aver that none of the parties were known to him, however, in his deposition before the Trial Court, he has candidly admitted that respondent No. l (plaintiff) and respondent No. 3, both were known to him. A reading of his statement made in Court, strengthens suspicion of this Court that the appellant knew about a fact that fraudulently, decree has been obtained against respondent No. 1, despite that he had taken a chance and purchased the property, in dispute, that too, without informing the owner. Under these circumstances, he cannot be termed as a bona fide purchase for consideration and no benefit can be given to him of ratio of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by his counsel. No case is made out for interference.
10. Dismissed.