R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008
Date of Decision:26.09.2008
Surat Singh and others
.....Appellants
Vs.
Satnam Singh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL
Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
****
HARBANS LAL, J.
The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that Sadha
Singh, father of the plaintiffs was owner of the disputed land which was a
Darya Burj sub-merged in the River Markanda and was uncultivable. Sadha
Singh sold his agricultural land besides the disputed land and left the
Village Jhansa. He had settled at Village Sarola, Tehsil Guhla, District
Kaithal after leaving Jhansa in the month of May, 1996. The plaintiffs No.1
to 3 visited the disputed land and found that the same was under cultivation.
They were told by the defendants that the land had been purchased by
Bharawan Bai widow of Santokh Singh from Sadha Singh on 1.7.1972 for a
consideration of Rs.15,000/-, though Sadha Singh had never sold the same.
Bharawan Bai along with her three sons Avtar Singh, Amar Singh, Satnam
Singh and others have forged the aforesaid sale deed. Sadha Singh never
executed any agreement to sell, nor he received any consideration. He had
also not put his left thumb impression/ signatures on the alleged sale deed
or the agreement to sell nor had appeared before the Sub-Registrar for
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -2-
executing these documents. Bharawan Bai and others got entered the
mutation No.6600 dated 21.9.1972 in their names which is null and void.
Bharawan Bai transferred the land measuring 3 kanal 5 marlas out of the
disputed land to defendant No.12 for a consideration of Rs.1,500/- vide sale
deed No.3147 dated 9.6.1973, which is null and void and is ineffective upon
the rights of the plaintiffs. Bharawan Bai through a Civil Court decree
dated 18.10.1988 transferred the land measuring 87 kanal 17 marlas to her
son Avtar Singh, father of defendants No.3 to 6 and others, which is null
and void ab-initio. The mutation No.7424 based on the impugned judgment
and decree dated 18.10.1988 is also null and void ab-initio. Avtar Singh
and Satnam Singh, sons of Bharawan Bai transferred their 2/3rd share
through a Civil Court decree in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 and 8 to 10
vide Civil Court decree dated 1.12.1990 and mutation No.7586 dated
15.3.1991 was entered in the revenue record. This judgment and decree and
subsequent revenue entries are also null and void. Out of the disputed land,
the land measuring 12 kanal 6 marlas was acquired by the Government for
the construction of S.Y.L. Canal. Defendant No.1 and Tara Singh had
received the compensation of Rs.11,779.88 according to their share in the
forged sale deed. They are liable to pay the same to the plaintiffs.
Defendants No.15 to 17 have further transferred 30 marlas land out of the
disputed land in favour of defendant No.11 vide Civil Court decree dated
13.9.1994, which is also illegal, null and void. Defendant No.7, Pritam Pal
Singh had transferred the land measuring 29 kanal 5 marlas out of the
disputed land in favour of defendant No.18 Tarlochan Singh vide sale deed
dated 6.5.1997, which is also null and void. Defendant No.8- Paramjit
Singh, defendant No.9- Harjit Singh and defendant No.10- Gurmeet Singh
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -3-
sons of Satnam Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant
No.19- Nirmal Singh qua the land measuring 29 kanal 6 marlas out of the
disputed land vide sale deed dated 13.5.1997 with malafide intention to
defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. All the revenue entries based on these sale
deeds are null and void. Defendants No.11, 13 to 17 have sold the land
measuring 30 kanal 6 marlas out of the disputed land in favour of defendant
No.20- Balkar Singh vide registered sale deed for a fictitious consideration
of Rs.3,03,000/- during the pendency of the present suit. Thus, this sale
deed is hit by the principle of lis pendens and is null and void. On these
allegations, this suit has been filed by Surat Singh and others against
Bharawan Bai and others for declaration with consequential relief of
possession. In the joint written statements, defendants No.2 to 17 and
defendants No.16 and 19 have come up with the plea that Sadha Singh had
transferred the suit land along with possession vide registered sale deed
dated 1.7.1972 in favour of Bharawan Bai and Tara Singh and since then
Bharawan Bai and Tara Singh and their successors-in-interest are in
continuous possession of the suit land without any interruption from any
quarter as owners. The following issues were framed:-
1) Whether sale deeds dated 1.7.72, 9.3.76, 13.5.97 and
6.5.97 are illegal, null and void, nonest, inoperative and
not binding upon the legal rights of the plaintiff?OPP
1-A) Whether the registered sale deed dated 5.9.1997 executed
by defendants No.11, 13 to 17 in favour of defendant
No.20, is null and void and is hit by principle of lis-
pends?OPP
2) Whether the decrees dated 18.10.88, 1.12.90 and 13.9.94
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -4-passed in civil suit Nos.937/88, 1371/90 and 379/94
respectively are illegal, null and void and not binding on
the rights of plaintiffs?OPP
3) If issues No.1 and 2 are proved, whether plaintiffs are
entitled to declaration and possession as prayed for?OPP
4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim any compensation
by way of damages from defendants, if so to what
amount?OPP
5) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file and
maintain the present suit?OPD
6) Whether the suit is time barred?OPD
7) Whether defendants are bonafide purchasers for value
and consideration, if so its effect?OPD
8) Whether plaintiffs are estopped by their own act and
conduct from filing the present suit?OPD
9) Relief.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining
the evidence on record, the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kurukshetra dismissed the suit vide her judgment and decree
dated 22.12.2005.
Feeling aggrieved therewith, the plaintiffs went up in appeal,
which has also been dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District
Judge, Kurukshetra vide her judgment and decree dated 26.4.2007. Being
dissatisfied therewith, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, besides
perusing the findings returned by both the Courts below with due care and
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -5-
circumspection.
Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants strenuously urged that the appellants/ plaintiffs have amply
proved that the impugned sale deed dated 1.7.1972 is a false and fabricated
document as according to Ex.PW4/A report of Mr. N.K. Jain, Handwriting
Expert, it does not bear the thumb impressions of Sadha Singh. He further
puts that the report of Handwriting Expert, Mr. Ram Dhan Babber examined
by the respondents/ defendants has been illegally accepted by both the
Courts below.
I have well considered these submissions. As a matter of fact,
sale deed Ex.P.1 has been challenged on the ground of fraud and
impersonation. In view of the provisions as enshrined in Order 6 Rule 4 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, it is obligatory upon the party putting forth the
plea of fraud to disclose the particulars thereof. Here in this case, the
particulars of alleged fraud appear to have not been disclosed. Furthermore,
the science of finger prints is complete and perfect in itself. Mr. N.K.Jain,
examined by the plaintiffs has proved his report Ex.PW4/A. As per the
same, the thumb impressions marked Q.3 and Q.4 on the back of first page
of the sale deed Ex.P.1 belong to some different persons and do not match
with thumb impressions Q.1 and Q.2 which have been taken from first page
of the sale deed Ex.P.1 and Q.5 taken from the second page of Ex.P.1. On
the other hand, Ram Dhan Babber, Handwriting Expert examined by the
defendants has proved his report Ex.DW3/A. In his opinion, the signatures/
thumb impressions marked S-1 to S-8 on first page, back of first page, face
of second page and on the sale deed dated 15.7.1964 are of the same person.
Mr. N.K. Jain (sic.) has pointed out 5 dis-similarities in the thumb
R.S.A. No.1990 of 2008 -6-
impressions marked Q.3 and Q.4 as compared to Q.1, Q.2, Q.5, S-3 to S-8
whereas Ram Dhan Babber Handwriting Expert has given 10 similarities in
the thumb impressions marked S-2, S-3, S-5, S-7 and S-8. He could not be
shattered or shaken qua these similarities during his cross-examination. A
combined reading of both these reports would show that the reasons
assigned by Mr. Ram Dhan Babber are more plausible than the ones
assigned by Mr. N.K. Jain. For a little while, if it is assumed that the
plaintiffs- appellants were sure that the disputed sale deed executed the
thumb impressions of Sadha Singh, they would have got referred the same
to the Director, Finger Print Bureau or the Forensic Science Laboratory. As
is borne out from the record, they did not have the courage to have such
opinion. A careful delving into the findings returned by both the Courts
below would reveal that no interference is warranted therein. In view of the
provisions as enshrined in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the
regular second appeal is to be entertained only when substantial question of
law is involved therein. Here in this case, no such question of law is
involved. That being so, this appeal is dismissed.
September 26, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE