RSA No.377 of 2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 377 of 2005
Date of Decision:October 27, 2009
Satnam Singh ...........Appellant
Versus
Sarwan Singh and another ..........Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Samir Rathore, Advocate for
Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.1
**
Sabina, J.
Plaintiff-Satnam Singh filed a suit for declaration to the
effect that the decree and judgment passed in Civil Suit No.275 of 4.9.1987
decided on 1.4.1991 by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Ropar in the suit
titled as `Sarwan Singh (now defendant No.1) vs. Sohan Singh (now
defendant No.2)’ for possession by way of specific performance in respect
of land measuring 6k-13M out of the land mentioned at letter X below is
illegal null and void. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the
Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ropar vide judgment and decree
dated 3.6.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal which
was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment
and decree dated 8.9.2004. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.
RSA No.377 of 2005 2
The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District
Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:-
” 2. The case of the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint is that
plaintiff Satnam Singh is minor and her mother Parkash Kaur is
his next friend and she has got no interest adverse to that of
minor. It is further pleaded that plaintiff and defendant No.2
constituted Joint Hindu Family. The suit property was inherited
by defendant No.2 from his father Pritam Singh who inherited the
same from his father Chattar Singh and Chattar Singh inherited
the same from his father Daya Singh. The plaintiff being
coparcener has got right in the suit property since his birth.
Defendant No.1 (wrongly written as defendant No.3) filed suit for
specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.6.1987 against
defendant No. 2 having Civil suit No.275 of 4.9.1987. The said
suit was decreed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge,
Ropar on 1.4.1991 and the appeal filed against the said judgment
and decree by defendant No.2 as well as regular Second Appeal
filed by defendant No.2, were dismissed. It is further pleaded that
defendant No.2 had got no legal necessity to dispose of the land in
question by executing agreement to sell dated 14.6.1987 in favour
of defendant No.1. That, thus, defendant No.2 had got no right to
dispose of the Joint Hindu Family Coparcenary Property. That
defendant No.2 had acted against the interest of minor plaintiff.
The above stated agreement to sell was not executed for the
benefit of the estate. That plaintiff has come to know that
defendant No.1 has already filed execution application to get
RSA No.377 of 2005 3executed the above stated judgment and decree. That the said
judgment and decree are illegal, null and void and are not binding
on plaintiff. Hence, the suit.
3.The suit was contested by defendant No.1 who filed written
statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has got
no locus standi to file the suit. That the suit is not maintainable
and is time barred and plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct
from filing the suit. On merits, it is denied that plaintiff and
defendant No.2 constituted Joint Hindu Family. It is also denied
that suit property was ancestral property in the hands of defendant
No. 2. It is pleaded that defendant No.2 executed an agreement to
sell dated 14.6.1987 for the welfare of his family. That answering
defendant has become owner and in possession of the suit
property on the basis of judgment and decree dated 1.4.1991
passed by the Court of Ld. Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Ropar. The
said judgment and decree have already attained finality. The sale
deed has already been executed in favour of answering defendant
by the Civil Court on 7.10.1997 regarding suit land. The plaintiff
has got no right, title or interest in the suit property. It is further
pleaded that sale deed dated 7.10.1997 is valid and is binding on
the plaintiff. The other averments of the plaint were denied being
wrong and it was pleaded that the suit be dismissed.”
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
“1. Whether the judgment and decree dated 1.4.1991 is null and
void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff?OPP
RSA No.377 of 2005 42.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present
suit?OPD
3. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD
4.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct
from filing the present suit?OPD
5.Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs under
Section 35-A CPC?OPD
6.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed
for ?OPP
7.Relief.”
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Sohan Singh executed an agreement to sell the land in
question with respondent No.1 Sarwan Singh on 14.6.1987. Rupees Six
thousand were paid as an earnest money by defendant No.1 to defendant
No.2. Defendant No.1 filed a suit for possession by way of specific
performance of the agreement to sell in question and the said suit was
decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.4.1991. The
appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed. The
regular second appeal filed against the decision of the lower appellate Court
was dismissed by this Court. Thus, the judgment and decree dated 1.4.1991
were upheld by the higher Courts and attained finality. The sale deed has
been executed in favour of defendant No. 1 in pursuance of the decision of
the Civil Court. Defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit land on the
basis of the execution of the sale deed by the Court in his favour.
Moreover, defendant No.1 was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land
RSA No.377 of 2005 5
for consideration. Mutation qua the suit land was sanctioned in favour of
defendant No.2 and his brother on the basis of a Will executed by their
father Pritam Singh. The agreement to sell was executed by defendant
No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 on 14.6.1987, whereas, the plaintiff was
born on 26.9.1988. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
No substantial question of law arises in this regular second
appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this
appeal is dismissed.
( Sabina )
Judge
October 27, 2009
arya