Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagir Singh vs Jagwant Singh And Ors. on 3 January, 2002
Author: Ashutosh Mohunta
Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
1. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the Sub Judge 1st Class, Tarn Taran dated 24.1.1977 and against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 23.10.1979. Both the above mentioned Courts dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant.
2. Briefly, the facts are that plaintiff Jagir Singh filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of land measuring 16 kanals 8 marlas bearing Khasra No.89/2(4-0), 88/1, (8-0), 12/1(2-8), 83/7(2-0) as mentioned in the jamabandi for the year 1971-72 situated in village Thathi Sohal, Tehsil Tarn Taran.
3. The appellant alleged that one Kahan Singh-respondent No. 3 was the original owner of the land mentioned above and said Kahan Singh vide sale-deed dated 2.12.1964 sold the suit land to the appellant for Rs. 2,500/-. This sale-deed was duly executed and registered. The appellant alleges that at the time of registration of the sale-deed, he was handed over possession of the land in dispute.
4. The averments of the appellant have been controverted by the respondents. According to the respondents the land in dispute was purchased by them for Rs. 20,000/-vide registered sale-deed dated 15.2.1971. It was further averred that relevant entries in the revenue records were duly made and mutation was also sanctioned. According to the respondents, the land had earlier been mortgaged to one Jawala Singh and Saudagar Singh vide Exhibits D3 and D5 respectively. It was averred that there is a specific recital in the sale-deed Exhibit Dl with regard to redemption of the mortgaged land by respondents No. 1 and 2. Thus, according to the respondents, the sale-deed in favour of the appellant is a fake document, whereas the sale-deed in their favour is absolutely genuine.
5. I have gone through the case file and the averments made on behalf of the appellant.
6. The short question in the present case is that which of the sale-deeds is genuine, and whether respondents No. 1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration. If the sale-deed in favour was a genuine document, then there would definitely have been entries to this effect in the revenue records. The sale in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was made on 21.2.1964, but there is no entry in the khasra girdawari to show that the plaintiff had started cultivating the land after he had purchased the same. There is also no copy of mutation in favour of the plaintiff incorporating any change in the ownership. In fact, the sale made in favour of the defendant - respondents clearly reveals that they are in possession of the land in dispute. Thus, there was no entry in the revenue records to show that the appellant was owner in possession of the suit land. Moreover, it has come in evidence of Nazar Singh-DW2 that Jagir Singh was never in possession of the suit land. In case the appellant had purchased the suit property and the sale-deed had been duly registered in his name, then he would definitely have filed an application for having necessary entries made in the revenue records, but in the present case, the appellant filed no such application.
7. Thus, apart from the fact that there are concurrent findings of both the Courts below, the perusal of the record also reveals that it is the defendants who had purchased the land in dispute on 15.2.1971 through a duly registered sale-deed.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I uphold the findings of both the Courts below and dismiss the appeal with costs, being without any merit.