R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision: 18.8.2009
Kanta Devi and others
......Appellants
Versus
Inderaj and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate,
for the appellants.
****
SABINA, J.
Plaintiffs Inderaj and Bhim Singh filed a suit for
possession, which was partly decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.)
Dabwali vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005. Defendant
No.1 Sushil Kumar filed an appeal against the plaintiffs and
defendants No. 2 and 3. The said appeal was dismissed by the
Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa vide judgment and
decree dated 1.11.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the legal
representatives of defendant No.1.
R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 2
Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-
“2. In brief, the case of the respondents is that
they filed a suit for possession of the suit land mentioned
in head note of the plaint and the same is situated within
the revenue estate of village Chautala. Tehsil Dabwali,
District Sirsa. Through this suit, prayer was made that
respondent No.1 be directed to execute the sale deed in
favour of the appellants qua the suit land and the
appellants be restrained to alienate the suit property in
any manner. It is also alleged that the sale deed bearing
No.1281 dated 5.8.1988 executed by respondent No.1 in
favour of the appellants has been set aside, therefore,
they are entitled to get the land equivalent to the land
which respondent No.1 agreed to sell in their favour.
They also prayed that in case the land is not given to
them then they be allowed to claim the consideration of
the sale deed, registration charges and other expenses
and the suffering of mental agony. Since they have
contested the suit up to the Hon’ble Apex Court though
they lost the battle.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the appellants.
They have denied all the averments of the respondents.
It is averred that respondent No.1 was not the owner of
R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 3the suit property, therefore, he was not competent to sell
the same in favour of the appellants. The appellants were
supposed to verify the title of the respondent No.1 and
then they should have purchased the suit land but this
has not been done by them. Smt. Saraswati Devi was
owner in possession of the sit land and the title of the
respondent No.1 came to an end in the year 1986 when
decree in favour of respondent No.1 was set aside by the
Court. It is also alleged that the appellant got the sale
deed executed when respondent No.1 was under the
influence of liquor because he was addicted to it and no
consideration was paid to him and in this way, the
appellants are not entitled for anything from the
respondents and prayer has been made that the suit of
the respondents be dismissed with costs.
On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the plaintiffs are bona fide purchaser
of the land measuring 45 kanals 18 marlas, as detailed in
para No.2 of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the
possession of the suit land measuring 45 kanals 18
marlas detailed in the head note of the plaint, as prayed
for? OPP
R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 42-A In case, issue No.2 is declined, whether the
plaintiffs are entitled to compensation i.e. loss suffered by
them, if in affirmative then how much ? OPP
3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the
present form? OPD
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by
the principle of resjudicata? OPD
4-A Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time
barred? OPD
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and
mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi
and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their
own act and conduct to file the present suit? OPD
8. Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected
under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC? OPD
9. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the
Court with clean hands, hence, they are not entitled to
any relief? OPD
10. Relief. “
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
suit filed by the plaintiffs was hopelessly time barred. The plaintiffs
could have filed the suit within three years from the date they had
R.S.A.No. 942 of 2009 (O&M) 5
been dis-possessed from the suit land. The plaintiffs had been dis-
possessed from the suit land in the year 1999.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of
the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on
record has held that defendant No.2, while appearing in the witness
box as DW-1, has deposed that the possession was taken from the
plaintiffs in the year 1997 and hence, the suit was filed within the
period of limitation. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs was set
aside. Thereafter, the parties litigated up to the Apex Court. The
decision of the Apex Court was rendered on 26.10.1998. Hence, the
suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1999 could not be held to be time
barred. The sale deed in question was executed by Shushil Kumar,
who was not competent to execute the same but had accepted the
sale consideration from the plaintiffs at the time of its execution.
Hence, the Courts below rightly ordered that the plaintiffs were
entitled to recover the amount of sale consideration etc.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(SABINA)
JUDGE
August 18, 2009
anita
