R.S.A. No. 3677 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 3677 of 2008
Date of Decision: 14.11.2008
Smt. Harpreet Kaur
...Appellant.
Versus
Tawinder Singh alias Tawinder Bir Singh
...Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
PRESENT: Ms. Upinder Kaur Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
Having lost before the courts below, the plaintiff has
approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 23.7.2008 passed by the Additional
District Judge, Ludhiana, affirming that of the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Ludhiana dated 16.1.2007, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for
declaration and joint possession, was dismissed.
Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff
was the owner of land measuring 10 marlas being 10/39th share of the
land measuring 9 kanals 17 marlas comprised in khewat No. 61,
khatauni No.84, rectangle No. 15, killa Nos. 13/2/2, 18/1, 23/1/1 as per
jamabandi for the year 1993-94 and also owner of land measuring 6
kanals 10 marlas comprised in khewat No.9, khatauni No.11, rectangle
No. 17, killa Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, rectangle No.18, killa Nos.16 and 25,
R.S.A. No. 3677 of 2008 -2-
rectangle No.21, killa Nos.1 and 2 as per jamabandi for the year 1994-
95 situated within the revenue estates of villages Bagga Kalan and
Rajowal, respectively, (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”). It was
pleaded that on 7.5.1999, when the plaintiff obtained the copies of
jamabandies, she came to know from the concerned Patwari that
proceedings for sanctioning of mutations in favour of the defendant in
respect of the suit land on the basis of sale deeds dated 11.12.1995
registered on 12.12.1995 were pending, whereas she had never
executed the aforesaid sale deeds in favour of the defendant and that
the signatures of the plaintiff thereon were forged as she signed in
English and her signature in Punjabi on the said sale deeds were
fabricated. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had no right, title
or interest in the suit land on the basis of alleged sale deeds which were
illegal, void and ineffective and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff
qua the suit land. Further, the defendant wrongly and illegally asserting
himself to be the owner of the suit land on the basis of the forged sale
deeds had got mutations No.1821 and 1847 sanctioned in his name
which were also illegal and inoperative. The plaintiff requested the
defendant to admit the claim of the plaintiff to be the owner and in
possession of the suit land but he flatly refused to accede to her request
which gave rise to the filing of the suit for declaration and joint
possession.
To controvert the suit of the plaintiff, the defendant filed a
written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded
that the plaintiff sold the suit land to the defendant for a total sale
consideration of Rs.66,000/- vide registered sale deeds dated
R.S.A. No. 3677 of 2008 -3-
11.12.1995 registered on 12.12.1995. Besides the suit land, the plaintiff
had also sold land measuring 3 kanals 6½ marlas out of khasra
No.33//9/2, khata No. 114/135 as per jamabandi for the year 1993-94 to
the defendant for a total sale consideration of Rs.63,000/- vide
registered sale deed dated 11.12.1995 registered on 12.12.1995 and
land measuring 4 kanals 9½ marlas out of khasra No. 11/22 khata
No.6/6 as per jamabandi for the year 1989-90 to the defendant for a
sale consideration of Rs.33,000/- vide registered sale deed dated
11.12.1995 registered on 14.12.1995 and handed over the possession
thereof to the defendant on receipt of the entire amount of the sale
consideration of Rs.1,62,000/- in cash on 29.11.1995. It was further
pleaded that the plaintiff had executed and got registered the sale
deeds with her own free will and signed the same after admitting and
understanding the contents thereof to be correct and presented the
same before the concerned Sub Registrar. The other averments made
in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was
made.
From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed
various issues and decided the same in favour of the defendant. On
appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court came to
the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the sale deeds
relied upon and placed on record by the defendant were forged and
fabricated. Further, the suit of the plaintiff was held to be time barred
as the sale deeds pertaining to the year 1995 were in the knowledge of
the plaintiff whereas she filed the suit challenging the same in the year
2000. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated
R.S.A. No. 3677 of 2008 -4-
16.1.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and joint
possession. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff took the matter in appeal
and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated
23.7.2008 dismissed the appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have
perused the impugned judgments with his assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellants has made an attempt to
persuade this Court to reappreciate the evidence led by the parties
before the trial court which is not permissible under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The courts below had recorded a finding of
fact that in her cross-examination, the plaintiff had admitted her
photographs on the sale deeds Ex.D1 to Ex.D4. Further, the courts
below had relied upon the report of the handwriting expert who in his
report opined that the signatures on the impugned sale deeds were of
and by Harpreet Kaur and that the plaintiff failed to rebut that report by
examining any other Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. No
misreading of the evidence by the courts below has been shown by the
learned counsel for the appellant warranting interference by this Court
in the regular second appeal.
No question of law, much less a substantial question of law
arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and
the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to
costs.
November 14, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs JUDGE
R.S.A. No. 3677 of 2008 -5-
C.M. No. 10911-C of 2008 IN
RSA No. 3677 of 2008
****
Present: Ms. Upinder Kaur Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.
****
This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to place
on record mutation (Annexure A-1) as additional evidence.
After perusing the application, no ground to lead additional
evidence is made out as essential ingredients for leading additional
evidence are not fulfilled.
The application is accordingly dismissed.
November 14, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE