In this second appeal regarding ownership of suit land, the High Court dismissed the appeal by holding that an unregistered writing did not transfer title and the appellant failed to prove possession or ownership, allowing the concurrent findings of lower courts to stand.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.4089 of 2010 (O & M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.4089 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 08.11.2010.
Jeet Singh and others
.....Appellants
Versus
Maya
……Respondent
Coram:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.
Present: Mr.Gulshan Mehta, Advocate for the appellant.
L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)
CM No.12272-C of 2010
Allowed as prayed for.
Main Appeal.
Legal representatives of original plaintiff Kaka Singh since deceased, having failed in both the Courts below, have filed the instant second appeal.
Kaka Singh filed suit against Maya-defendant respondent seeking declaration that plaintiff is owner of the suit property, a bara comprised of khasra No.181 measuring 4 marlas with house constructed thereon. The plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in possession of the pliantiff over the suit property. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the suit land from defendant's father Ralla Ram vide receipt dated 12.06.1964 for Rs.500/-. Ralla Ram put the plaintiff in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff raised construction over it and obtained electricity connection in the name of his son Gurmit Singh. The
-2-
RSA No.4089 of 2010 (O & M)
defendant started proclaiming herself to be owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of wrong revenue entries, although defendant has no right, title or interest in the suit property.
The defendant denied the plaint allegations. The defendant's father never sold the suit land to the plaintiff on 12.06.1964 nor received any consideration from the plaintiff. Writing dated 12.06.1964 set up by the plaintiff is forged and fictitious and also unstamped and unregistered. Suit land was allotted to Ralla Ram being landless person. On his death on 15.05.1974, his widow Assa Devi and Daughter Maya-defendant inherited the suit land in equal shares and became owners. After the death of Assa Devi, her share was also inherited by Maya, who became sole owner in possession of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised.
Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff's legal representatives has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 07.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved, legal representatives of the plaintiff have preferred the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that writing dated 12.06.1964 being more than 30 years old is per se admissible in evidence. It was also contended that attesting witnesses of the said writing have since been died and, therefore, the
RSA No.4089 of 2010 (O & M)
-3-
plaintiff could not examine them as witness in the case. It was contented that the plaintiff having purchased the suit property from the defendant's father became its owner in possession.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find no merit therein. The plaintiff is seeking declaration that he is owner of the suit property. He has claimed ownership on the basis of writing dated 12.06.1964 vide which plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit land for Rs.500/-. However, title in the suit land could not be transferred to the plaintiff through this unregistered writing. Admittedly, there is no registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, there was no valid transfer of title in favour of the plaintiff and he has not become owner of the suit land. Even if averments pleaded by the plaintiff are taken at face value, the plaintiff cannot be said to have become owner of the suit property in the absence of any registered sale deed.
Even possession of the plaintiff over the suit property is not proved because there is no entry regarding possession of the plaintiff in the revenue record. The suit was filed on 16.07.2004 i.e 40 years after the alleged purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff from defendant's father. However, during this long period of four decades, the plaintiff was never entered to be owner or in possession of the suit land in the revenue record. On the contrary, defendant's father continued to be recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land even after alleged writing dated 12.06.1964 and lastly the defendant was recorded to be owner in possession of the suit land.
For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in the instant second appeal. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent
RSA No.4089 of 2010 (O & M)
-4-
finding against the plaintiff. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. At the risk of repetition, it may be highlighted that even assuming the plaintiff's version to be correct, he has not acquired ownership over the suit land. His possession over the suit property is also not proved. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.
08.11.2010. A. Kaundal
( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the unregistered writing dated 1964 was sufficient to transfer ownership of the suit land to the appellant.
Whether the appellant had established title and possession over the suit property after a delay of 40 years.
Whether the findings of lower courts rejecting the appellant's claim of ownership were perverse or illegal warranting interference in second appeal.
Legal representatives of Kaka Singh
Maya
L. N. Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
