R.S.A.NO.1761 OF 2007 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.NO.1761 OF 2007
Date of decision: 27th October, 2009
Roor Singh
.....Appellant
versus
Balbir Kaur and others
.....Respondents
Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla. Advocate
for the appellant.
Rajive Bhalla, J.(Oral)
The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees
dated 11.02.2003 and 30.01.2007, passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Moga and the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga,
dismissing his suit and his appeal respectively.
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration that
he is owner in possession of plot, measuring 7 marlas and 4
sarsahi, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 25.8.1995.
The respondents filed separate written statements denying the
averments in the plaint and asserting that the sale deed is a
forged and fabricated document and even otherwise, the
appellant’s vendor had no right, title or interest in the suit
property. In addition respondent no. 1 pleaded that the suit
land was purchased by way of a registered sale deed dated
14.06.1989, by her deceased son.
R.S.A.NO.1761 OF 2007 2
After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced
and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit
by holding that Sukhdev Singh deceased son of respondent no. 1
Balbir Kaur had purchased the suit land by way of a prior sale
deed. It was also held that the boundaries recorded in the sale
deed executed in favour of the appellant do not tally with the suit
land.
Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and
decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree
dated 30.01.2007, the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga,
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the
trial court.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the courts
below had no jurisdiction to reject a registered sale deed,
particularly when the appellant has proved the sale deed and has
established that the suit land was purchased by him. It is further
argued that the evidence relating to possession of the suit
property has been ignored by the trial court.
I have heard counsel for the appellant, considered the
arguments addressed, appraised the questions of law and do not
find any error in the impugned judgments as would raise a
substantial question of law. The sale deed executed in favour of
the appellant has been held to be null and void as Sukhdev Singh
the deceased son of respondent no. 1, had purchased the suit
land by way of a prior sale deed. It has also been held that the
description of the property in the sale deed does not tally with
R.S.A.NO.1761 OF 2007 3
the description of the suit land. The courts below have considered
the pleadings and the evidence and have thereafter, dismissed
the suit. The findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not
suffer from any error of law as would require interference.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the
appeal is dismissed.
[RAJIVE BHALLA]
JUDGE
27th October, 2009
Shivani Kaushik