In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge to the dismissal of a suit for possession. Upholding findings below, it held the sale deed was a loan security document without valid sale consideration.
The appeal was held to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.
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.
0
83
v
0 0 I 0 I Z
I Z rn 7 Z 0
RSA NoA240 of2009
1
IN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHAND1GARH
RSA No4240 of2009
Date ofDecision Januaryi 2012
AllajorSingh
ippellant
Versus
SurjitSingh
Respondent
CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTlCE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present Mrritam SinghBaathAdvocate forthe appellant
MrSS RangiAdvocate forthe
CC
TEJINDER SlNGH DHINDSA J
The is in secondappealbefore this Court
61
2 Brieflystated the plaintifffiledasuit for possessionby stating that the defendantwas the owner of the land measuringS9114Marlas and therewas a construction over a portionof such land and the same wasln possessionofthe defendant Itwas pleadedthaton 8A1999 the defendant sold the aforesaidplot of land alongwith construction to the plaintifffora
sum of 500001 and executeda saleedeedin favour of the plaintiff The plaintiffcontendedthatthedefendanthad agreedtodeliverthe possession of the suit land but after execution of the saleieed the possessionhas not beendelivered Accordinglythe suit had beeninstituted 3
Defendant put in appearance and filed written statement
wllerein althoughhe admittedhis ownershipand possessionof the landlIl
disputebutset upadefencethat hewas in need of money and accordingly
the defendanthad insistedon executionofan agreementto sell ofthe house
JOYTI RANIwhich 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Rashmi had2012.11.20 16: 23True ScannedCopy Of the theplaintifftoadvancean amount of500001 3 uponwhich Original PHHC,Chandigarh
84
2
r
0 0 C5 I Z
r I
Z C0 7 Z Il
RSA NoA240 of2009
in his favOUle the defendantsubmittedin his written statement thathe had executedan agreementto sell ofhis house on 8A1989 in favour ofthe plaintlffwhereuponthe plaintiffhadassuredto pay thesame on the next day but no suchamount was actuallypaidtohim The defendant further submittedthat the suit propertyis the only residential house of the defendantandas such therewasno occasionto alienatethesame in favour ofthe plaintiff
4 From of partiesthe twomain issuesthatwere struck
bythe trial Courtwere1
of land l 9 Whether the plaintiffis entitled to possession 0kanal 5114 marlas20PP 2 Whether the defendantsold the above said land alongwith constructlon to the plaintifffor a sum of 500001 on 8199920PP
5 Upon ofevidenceand havingheard respective counselthe trial Court recordeda conclusion thatat the time of execution of documentdated 8A 1999 the partieshadno intention to transfer the
l
Il ofthe property Itwasheldtobe a monetarytransactionbetween the partiesand the plaintiffbeingatan positionhadgot the documentdated 8A1 999 executed in the shapeof saleedeedin order to secure the repaymentof loan Itwas held thatno considerationof sale had passedbetweenthe partiesandas such the transactloll between the parties couldnot be heldto bea sale transaction Accordinglythe suit of the 1 plaintiffwasdismissed
6 has Rashmi The plaintifappellantpreferreda civil appealand the same JOYTI RANI 2012.11.20 16: 23 2016.03.28 16:01 True ScannedCopy Of the I attest to the accuracy and alsoOriginalbeen dismissed vide judgmentdated 3092008 bythe Additional integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh
85
rv 1
3
r
1 0 C I C I Z
I t23 Z oo 7 Z
RSA NoA240 of2009
District JudgeLudhiana Resultantlythe plaintifflpellantis insecond appealbeforethis Court
7 Ihaveheard respectivecounselfor the partiesat length
is thatonce the execution of the sa1eieed by the defenda infavour ofthe has been Iy provedthe Courts below could not have denied the relief of possessionof the SUit propertyon the basisoftitle
9 On the other hand learnedcounsel for the submits that the transactionwas a mere sham and the witnessesof the partieswould be crucial and could be gatheredfrom the recital made in the documentas also from the conduct ofthe partiesandthe evidence partrecorded
10 Ihave givenmy thought11consideration tothesubmissions made by respectivecounsel and have perusedthe ofthetrial Courtand tlrst AppellateCourt minutely
11 I donot find itto bea fitcaseto interferewith the Sndingsand conclusionsarrived at by the Courts below
12 The had admitted in his crossexaminatiOll that at the time ofexecution ofthe document Exhibit Pl dated8A1999 he had not paidany saleeconsiderationin the presenceofthe Sub RegisttarHe admittedthat the propertysoldwasa residentialhouse but the possession
was not delivered to him at the time of execution of the document However there1S no such stipulationinthedocument dated 8A1999that the posscssionwasto be delivered at the later point of time Rather the stipulationRashmiin Exhibit Pl 6page2 was to the effect that the ofthe JOYTI RANI
2012.11.20 16: 23 2016.03.28 16:01
True ScannedCopy Of the the I attest to the accuracy and propenyOriginalstandsdeliveredto the purchaser1ee integrity of this document PHHC,Chandigarh
86
4
Ilo
0 0 0 C5 I
Z
C I C Z r Wm Z Ll
RSA Noe4240of2009
Althoughinhisexaminatiorchief the had statedthat he had the property from the for a consideration of 500001 but nothinghad been stated as to when and where the entire saleconsideration had been passedon to the defendante
The scribe PW Jaswant Singh had also stated that no considerationhad passedbetween the partiesbefore him PW Ranjodh Singhstatedthattheproperty in disputehadbeensold bythedefendante to the foraconsideration of 800001 which lS in conflict with the case ofthe who is statedto have thesame forasum ofRs00001 The first AppellateCoun has clearlyinferredthat ina situationwherethe had paidthe total consideration amount in respectof the suit propertyand hadeven executed the saledeed and the havingnotdelivered the possessionthenthe should have flled a suit for immediatelyor would havetaken recourse to filinga complaint to the policeor civilauthorities The allegedsaleieed was executedon 81999 whereasthe suitwas institutedonlyon 2632002 ie almost afier a periodof three years 8om the execution of the saledeed The defence verSlOn ofthe hasbeenfound credible and it has been heId that the document had been executed onlyln Irtherance to a loan transactionso as to ensure that the proposedborrowed amount is retumed Both the Courts below have also concludedon the basisofevidence led and admission made by the himselfthathe 1S running a Finance Companyand isa Financier
ln the givenset of circumstanceswhen two viewsare possible JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01
13
Rashmi JOYTI RANI 2012.11.20 16: 23 2016.03.28 16:01 True ScannedCopy Of the I attest to the accuracy and lt wouldOriginalPHHC,Chandigarhnot be open for High Court in exercise of jurisdictionunder integrity of this document
87
1 RSA NoA240 of2009 5 0 Section100 ofthe Code of Civil Procedureto substituteitsown view upon the view taken by the first AppellateCourt unless such view is wholly erroneous and perverse Both the Courts below have held that the document Exhibit Pl had not been executedas a sale1eed and no considerationof sale had passedbetweenthe partiesand thesame could not have been heldasa saletransactionsoas to transfertitle 1 C 14 Ifindno inflrmityinthe conclusions arrivedat bytheCourts 0 below C43 15 No questionoflaw much less substantial questionof Iaw I C5 arisesfoi detenninationin the presentsecondappeal 16 The presentappealis whollydevoid of merit and deservesto Z be dismissed tr 17 Appealdismissed 4 I 1 Z TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA I JANUARY t 2012 JUDGE SRM m J Note2 Whether to be referredto Reporter7y61N0 7 Z
9
1
v
19J
qy4Ll
Rashmi
2012.11.20 16: 23
True Scanned
Copy Of the
Original
PHHC,Chandigarh
9k11
JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the sale deed was a sham transaction executed in furtherance of a loan.
Whether this Court should interfere with the finding of fact that no sale consideration was paid.
Whether substantial question of law arose for determination in the second appeal.
Allajor Singh
Surjit Singh
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
