The Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a regular second appeal. The appellant challenged the decree of a suit for declaration of ownership based on a registered sale deed. The court held that the plea of fraud without proper pleading and proof under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC was unsustainable.
The appeal 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.
RSA No.1635 of 2016 (O&M)
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1635 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:14.11.2018
Darbara Singh
... Appellant
Vs.
Dev Raj and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present:Mr. J.K.Singla, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. P.K.S.Phoolka, Advocate for the caveator/respondent.
AMIT RAWAL J. (Oral)
Appellant-defendant no.1 is in Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of facts and law, whereby, suit of the plaintiffrespondent no.1 for declaration on the basis of the registered sale deed, has been decreed.
The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming ownership and possession of land measuring 2 kanals on the basis of the sale deed 29.06.1987 executed by defendant no.1- Darbara Singh and sought setting aside of the various sale deeds executed post the sale deed of the plaintiff. It was alleged that defendant had sold the land for a valuable consideration and therefore, had no right to further alienate the suit land without any title.
The appellant-defendant opposed the aforementioned suit on
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.11.26 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
RSA No.1635 of 2016 (O&M) (2)
the ground that sale deed was never executed by him and was a result of fraud and mis-representation. The plaintiff examined as many as four witnesses and brought on record the documentary evidence, i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as DW1 and closed the evidence.
On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit and set aside all the sale deeds executed post the sale deed of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The appeal as indicated above has also been dismissed.
Mr. J.K.Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that plaintiff had not been able to prove the execution of the sale deed, much less passing of the consideration. PW3-Jora Singh did not prove the sale deed. In such circumstances, the Court below should not have granted the declaration. PW4-Harpal Singh also disclosed the fact, beyond pleadings, which could not be looked into.
I am afraid the aforementioned argument is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for, provisions of Order 6 Rule 4 CPC, envisaging fraud and misrepresentation is not only to be pleaded but proved, have not been complied with, nor any counter claim was filed for challenging the registered document which can only be challenged in civil suit in view of the law laid down by Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. and others 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 904 . In such circumstances, defendant no.1 could not have sold the disputed land by virtue of subsequent sale deeds.
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.11.26 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
(3)
RSA No.1635 of 2016 (O&M)
I cannot remain unmindful of the fact that judgment and decree is only confined to the particulars of the land mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.06.1987. It is also a matter of record that plaintiff had proved the ownership of defendant no.1 by proving on record the sale deed dated 17.05.2004, thus, argument of Mr. Singla, is not able to bring the case within the realm of illegality and perversity. No substantial question of law arises for adjudication of the present appeals.
The appeal stands dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE November 14, 2018 savita Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No
SAVITA KADIAN 2018.11.26 09:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in decreeing a suit for declaration of ownership and possession of land where execution and consideration of the sale deed were not adequately proved.
Whether the appellant's plea of fraud and misrepresentation was sustainable under Order 6 Rule 4 CPC without proper filing of counter-claim and proof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. and othersReferred¶21
Satya Pal Anand Vs. State of M.P. and others 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 904
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Darbara Singh
Dev Raj
Amit Rawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
