Dismissed

Harbans Singh v. Gurmit Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Mar 2012RSA/1560/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal challenging a property suit decree, the appellant argued against ownership findings and valid purchaser status. The court affirmed concurrent findings, dismissed the delay application by finding sufficient cause, and dismissed the appeal for lack of substantial question of law.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed as it raised no substantial question of law; the delay of 22 days was condoned.

Harbans Singh Vs Gurmit Singh & Ors. — Partition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

RSA No.1560 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.1560 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:06.03.2012

Harbans Singh

......Appellant

Vs.

Gurmit Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶11

Present: Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.

¶14

CM No.4350-C of 2011:

¶15

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking 22 days delay in filing the instant second appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellant.

¶16

For the reasons stated in para Nos.2 & 3 of the application, I find that sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of 22 days delay in filing the appeal.

¶17

Delay of 22 days in filing the instant second appeal is condoned. CM disposed of.

¶18

RSA No.1560 of 2011:

¶19

The defendant/appellant is in second appeal before this Court. Briefly noticed, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and

¶20

-2-

¶21

RSA No.1560 of 2011 (O&M)

¶22

permanent injunction by pleading that they are the owners in possession to the extent of 32 shares out of total 54 shares as regards the suit property and that defendant No.2 has no right or title on the basis of sale deed dated 31.12.1996, which has been executed by defendant No.1-Munsha Singh. It was pleaded that the land in dispute measuring 1 kanal, 14 marlas is Gair Mumkin Taur Chah. Dhanna Singh, father of the plaintiffs was given 20 shares in the suit land out of the total 54 shares at the time of consolidation. The shares of Puran Singh s/o Inder Singh and Fauja Singh s/o Narain Singh were purchased by Dalip Kaur, mother of the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 08.11.1955. Upon her death, the plaintiffs had inherited the same. Likewise, the shares of Smt. Karnail Kaur and Dara Singh s/o Mehnga Singh were purchased by Charanjit Kaur wife of the plaintiff, Gurmit Singh vide sale deed dated 27.12.1968. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had also purchased share of Teja Singh s/o Inder Singh vide sale deed dated 12.06.1958. Three shares of Jagat Singh s/o Atma Singh were also purchased by the plaintiffs. Share holders in the suit property i.e. Partap Singh, Bawa Singh and Munsha Singh had suffered the judgment and decree in favour of Dhanna Singh i.e. father of the plaintiffs in the year 1955. As such, on the basis of inheritance from their mother and father coupled with relinquishment of share of wife of plaintiff-Gurmit Singh, the plaintiffs had become owners in possession of 32 shares out of total 54 shares in the suit property. Defendant-Munsha Singh had executed the alleged sale deed in favour of defendant No.2-Harbans Singh dated 31.12.1996 without having any right in the property in so far as share of his brothers namely Partap Singh and Bawa Singh. It was pleaded that such sale deed dated 31.12.1996 is null and void. The plaintiffs also prayed for the defendants to be restrained from

¶23

-3-

¶24

RSA No.1560 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly from the suit property to the extent of 32 shares.

¶26

The suit was contested, wherein defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement claiming himself to be a bonafide purchaser. It was stated that defendant No.1 had got transferred the share of his brothers namely Partap Singh and Bawa Singh and had transferred the land to defendant No.2 for valuable consideration vide sale deed dated 31.12.1996. Defendant No.1 also filed a written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that in fact the plaintiffs were in possession of land more than their shares.

¶27

The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2003 decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. Harbans Singh-defendant No.2 filed a civil appeal and in terms of judgment dated 19.01.2005, the first appellate Court framed the following two additional issues and remanded the case back to the trial Court for reconsideration:

¶28

Whether the sale deed dated 31.12.1996 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is legal and valid? OPD

¶29

Whether the defendant No.2 is a bonafide purchaser by 2 and half marlas of land out of the suit property for consideration and without notice? OPD.

¶30

Upon remand, the trial Court having heard respective counsels

¶31

and having scanned the evidence led on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and held them to be owners in possession to the extent of 32 shares out of 54 shares and the sale deed dated 31.12.1996 executed by Munsha Singh was held to be null and void. The plaintiffs were also held

¶32

-4-

¶33

RSA No.1560 of 2011 (O&M)

¶34

entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the defendants were accordingly, restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property forcibly and except in due process of law. Defendant/appellant filed a civil appeal and the same has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 28.10.2010 passed by the first appellate Court. Resultantly, the defendant/appellant-Harbans Singh is in second appeal before this Court.

¶35

I have heard Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant at length.

¶36

Learned counsel has raised a submission that the Courts below have recorded perverse findings as regards the ownership of the plaintiff/respondents to the extent of their shares in the suit property is concerned. In this regard, the first appellate Court has taken a note of the fact that the plaintiffs had proved on record jamabandi, Ex.P-1 for the year 1990-91. The defendants had also proved on record jamabandi Ex.DW3/3 for the year 1991. Presumption of truth is attached to such documents unless the same are rebutted. Dhanna Singh, father of the plaintiffs is reflected to be the owner of 20 shares and the plaintiffs are shown to be owners to the extent of 11 shares. As such there is no dispute inter se the parties as regards the ownership of plaintiff/respondents in the suit property. As regards one more share, which was earlier owned by Partap Singh and Bawa Singh, brothers of defendant No.1 Munsha Singh, the plaintiffs proved on record certified copy of judgment and decree, Ex.P.3 dated 01.10.1955 as per which, Partap Singh and Bawa Singh had suffered such decree in favour of Dhanna Singh, father of the plaintiffs regarding their share. Even the mutation, Ex.PC was sanctioned in favour of Dhanna Singh father of the

¶37

-5-

¶38

RSA No.1560 of 2011 (O&M)

¶39

plaintiffs on the basis of such decree. As such concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below to hold the plaintiffs to be owners in the suit property to the extent of 32 shares out of the total of 54 shares. Such finding is based on a due appreciation of evidence and I find no ground that would warrant interference in the same.

¶40

Learned counsel would also contend that the Courts below have erred in not holding the defendant/appellant, Harbans Singh to be a bonafide purchaser from Munsha Singh as regards the share of Partap Singh and Bawa Singh is concerned. Even such contention is wholly without merit. No document of title or valid transfer in respect of the share of Partap Singh and Bawa Singh in favour of Munsha Singh i.e. vendor of the appellantHarbans Singh was produced and proved on record. Appellant-Harbans Singh as such can not claim himself to be a bonafide purchaser without there being any valid deed of transfer in respect of share of Partap Singh and Bawa Singh in favour of Dhanna Singh.

¶41

For the reasons recorded above, the present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law much less substantial question of law.

¶42

Appeal dismissed .

¶43

March 06, 2012 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE

¶44

Note: Whether to be reported? No

Harbans Singh v. Gurmit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harbans Singh v. Gurmit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Dhara and Ors. Vs Partap Singh and Ors.

Mall Singh Vs Gurbachan Singh

Ramesh Kumar Vs Darshan Singh

Karnail Singh & Others Vs Harvijay Partap Singh and Others

Sant Singh Vs Rajnesh and Ors.

Dev Raj Vs Jaswinder Kaur and Anr.