Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darshan Singh vs Satya Devi And Others on 12 January, 2026
128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-973-2020 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.01.2026
DARSHAN SINGH
.... Appellant
Versus
SATYA DEVI AND OTHERS
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL
Present: Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Kansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)
Appellant/defendant No.2 is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 15.04.2014, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rupnagar as well as judgment and decree dated 28.02.2019, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide which suit for declaration and possession preferred by plaintiffs/respondents was decreed and first appeal preferred by appellant/defendant No.2 was dismissed.
2. In their suit for declaration and possession, plaintiffs/respondents had claimed that suit property was owned by Attru 1 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: Ram who had purchased the same from Municipal Corporation, Ropar vide sale deed dated 22.02.1969 and sale certificate in two auctions. After the purchase, Attru Ram had constructed three shops initially after getting its plans sanctioned by Municipal Corporation, Ropar on 01.07.1974, subsequently five more shops were added. During the lifetime of Attru Ram, seven shops existed. During his lifetime he had executed registered sale deed in favour of his son Chanan Ram who was husband of plaintiff No.1 and Dayal Kaur widow of Norata Ram who was mother of plaintiff No.2 and proforma defendants No.3 and 4. Subsequently, he also executed Will giving three shops to plaintiff No.1 and other three shops to Dayal Kaur, mother of plaintiff No.2 and proforma defendants No.3 and 4. One shop was kept by him which he subsequently had given to Dayal Kaur. Satya Devi (successor of Dayal Kaur) who got three shops, mortgaged one shop to Malkiat Ram and other shop was occupied by scooter spare parts dealer. Two shops were in possession of plaintiff No.1 and proforma defendants No.3 and 4. It is further asserted that plot No.791/A and additional land which was earlier purchased through auctions now is renumbered as plot No.1946 and 1947 in the municipal records. That during lifetime of Attru Ram a litigation took place between Attru Ram and Dayal Kaur regarding street which was dismissed by Court of learned Sub Judge, First Class, Ropar on 01.10.1988. Plaintiffs further claimed that they were paying municipal tax to Municipal Corporation, Ropar regularly. However, Murari Lal/defendant No.1 who happened to be notorious person sold away part of suit property to defendant No.2 by executing sale deed without there being any right or title in the suit 2 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: property. Hence suit for declaration and possession was preferred.
3. The allegations made in suit were denied by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 took number of preliminary objections as regards to maintainability of suit and on merits asserted that he has not sold any part of property owned by plaintiffs and proforma defendants No.3 and 4. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.
4. Appellant/defendant No.2 also took number of preliminary objections and claimed that he had purchased property measuring 511.11 sq. yds. (50' x 92') bearing Municipal No.1972 Old Lot No.9, custodian No.791 vide sale deed dated 10.04.2006 bearing sale deed No.90 registered with Office of Sub Registrar, Rupnagar for total consideration of Rs.10,25,000/-. Appellant/defendant No.2 claimed himself to be owner in possession of suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 10.04.2006. It was asserted that plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the property purchased by appellant/defendant No.2. It was asserted that out of the property purchased by appellant/defendant No.2, about 100 sq. yds area consist of shop and remaining is non-commercial property, but at the time of execution of sale deed the shops were not shown in site plan inadvertently by draftsman and the fact that 100 sq. yds is commercial portion was not mentioned in the sale deed inadvertently. That when the sale deed was presented, Sub Registrar got the property inspected and found that 100 sq. yds area was commercial and accordingly he sent the matter to Collector for taking action under Section 47(e) of Indian Stamp Act. Collector after taking into consideration that property No.1972 purchased by appellant/defendant No.2 was 3 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: comprised of shops, directed appellant/defendant No.2 to deposit an amount of Rs.44,910/- towards deficit stamp duty and it was upon payment of complete stamp duty as demanded by Collector, sale deed was confirmed. It is asserted that plaintiffs/respondents are trying to take advantage of non- mentioning of 100 sq. yds as commercial area. Sanctioning of shops constructed by Attru Ram by Municipal Corporation was denied. Will in favour of Chanan Ram was stated to be forged and fabricated. The right of Dayal Kaur was also stated to be wrong and denied. Dismissal of suit was prayed for.
5. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned Court of first instance:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendants No.3 and 4 are owners in possession of the suit property on the basis of Will executed by Attru Ram? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?
OPD
5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD
7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPD
8. Whether the defendant No.2 is in possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 10.4.2006? OPD 4 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 :::
9. Relief.
6. The simple issue in the present case is whether the disputed land is part of plot No.791A and additional land purchased by Attru Ram from Municipal Council adjoining to plot No.791A bearing No. 1946 & 1947 or same falls in plot No.1972 owned by defendant No.1 and sold to appellant/defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 10.04.2006. Both the Courts on appreciation of evidence duly concluded that suit property is part of plot No.791A and plot which Attru Ram had purchased from Municipal Council in the open auction i.e. plot No. 1946 & 1947. It was held that defendant No.1 had sold land in excess which was not owned by him to appellant/defendant No.2 and, therefore, appellant/defendant No.2 could not have any better title than defendant No.1.
7. The above noted conclusion is drawn on the basis of evidence led by plaintiffs/respondents as well as defendants. On consideration, I am in agreement with the conclusion drawn by both the Courts regarding ownership of Attru Ram predecessor of plaintiffs/respondents over suit property. Plaintiffs/respondents have duly pleaded and proved that plot No.791A was purchased by Attru Ram in auction from custodian. Sale certificate showing purchase by Attru Ram was duly placed as Ex.PW7/29 dated 15.02.1972 issued by Managing Officer, Jalandhar. The original sale certificate was duly accepted by both the Courts and objection raised by defendants that sale certificate is defective as no site plan is attached, was rightly rejected by both the Courts in view of the fact that document produced by plaintiffs/respondents was not only original but even defendants 5 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: are not claiming any right over plot No.791A. It is not the case of defendant No.1 that he is not owner of plot No.791A rather his case is that he had purchased plot No. 1972. It is worth noticing that in Ex.PW7/29 property is duly described to be bounded by agricultural land on eastern side, plot owned by Municipal Council, Ropar on western side, house No.791 on northern side and road on southern side. Plaintiffs/respondents have also duly succeeded in proving by placing sale deed Ex.P2 on record that another plot was purchased by Attru Ram from Municipal Council, Ropar vide sale deed dated 22.02.1969 which was bounded by vacant plot of custodian on the eastern side, passage on western side, vacant plot of custodian on northern side and road on southern side.
8. The argument raised on behalf of learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.2 that sale deed Ex.P2 was also not proved by plaintiffs/respondents was also considered and rejected by both the Courts for valid reasons. It is worth noticing that certified copy of sale deed Ex.PW7/30 was duly proved on record as said certified copy was issued by Copying Agency, Ropar on 19.01.1990 along with site plan as well as memo of parties in Civil Suit No.67 dated 20.02.1986. The original sale deed was produced in Civil Suit No.67 dated 20.02.1986 as one Dalip Kaur had filed suit for mandatory injunction against Attru Ram and accordingly, it was taken that certified copy of sale deed duly certified by Court proves that Attru Ram had purchased land situated on the western side of plot No.791A and boundaries as mentioned in Ex.PW7/29 corresponds with entries made in Ex.PW7/30.
6 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 :::
9. Reasoning given by both the Courts to accept and conclude that plot No.791A and plot owned by Municipal Council, Ropar which was on the western side of plot No.791A both were purchased by Attru Ram from custodian and Municipal Council respectively is based upon document of titles i.e. Ex. PW-7/29 & Ex. PW-7/30. On one hand, plaintiffs/respondents have succeeded in proving its ownership over plot No.791A along with another plot owned by Municipal Council adjoining to plot No.791A now numbered as 1946 & 1947. On the other hand learned Courts after appreciation of evidence have concluded that defendants have failed to prove that defendant No.1 was owner of suit property which he allegedly sold vide sale deed dated 10.04.2006.
10. Moreover, plaintiffs/respondents have also succeeded in proving site plan Ex.PW7/36 and Ex.PW7/37 showing existence of approved construction over property purchased by Attru Ram. The factum of construction of shop after getting the site plan approved from Municipal Council was duly pleaded and proved by plaintiffs/respondents. Pleadings as well as evidence goes to show that both the Courts have rightly held that defendants have failed to prove that property mentioned in sale deed is not part of plot No.791A and additional land adjoining plot No.791A purchased by plaintiffs/respondents (now bearing Nos. 1947 & 1947 from custodian and Municipal Council.
11. The claim of appellant/defendant No.2 Darshan Singh is that he has purchased suit land measuring 511 sq yds from defendant No.1 which included 8 shops which are being claimed by plaintiffs/respondents.
7 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: However, mere execution of sale deed Ex.D1 would not justify claim of appellant/defendant No.2. Appellant/defendant No.2 was bound to show that suit land which is stated to be plot No.1972 owned by defendant No.1 included in land mentioned described in Ex.D1.
12. Perusal of site plan annexed with the sale deed i.e. Ex.D1 in favour of appellant/defendant No.2 shows that suit land measures 50' x 92' and road exists on southern side. Further it is mentioned that street exists on eastern side, property of Raj Kumar and Satya Devi exists on western side and house of Murari Lal exists on northern side. Learned Courts below have duly taken into consideration site plan Ex.PW3/3 which was part of previous litigation filed by Suraj Prakash through his legal heirs against Murari Lal/defendant No.1 vendor of appellant/defendant No.2. Suraj Prakash had filed a suit for partition which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2000 by virtue of judgment Ex.P10. The suit was for possession seeking seperation of share of plaintiffs/respondents in partition bearing No.1973 situated in Ali Mohalla, Ropar. Copy of decree-sheet Ex.P11 goes to show that suit property which was subject matter of partition was bounded by property of civil hospital on eastern side, house of Kaka Singh and Niranjan Singh on western side, house of Chanan Ram predecessor-in- interest of plaintiff No.1 on southern side. Similar dimensions were given in Ex.PW3/1 plaint dated 07.07.1995. Even the site plan Ex.PW3/3 attached in the suit duly mentioned existence of property of Chanan Ram on southern side, predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.3 and 4. The suit property i.e. plot No.1973 was having length of 71 ft 7 inches on eastern side while on 8 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: southern side dimension of boundary touching property of Chanan Ram was 49 ft. Interestingly now document has been placed on record which could show the extent of property owned by defendant No. 1. To accept Ex. D-1 it was necessary to show that person who had sold property was owner to the extent sold by him. This important material is missing.
13. Both the Courts have rightly concluded that on the southern side of property i.e plot No.1973 existed the property of Chanan Ram predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.3 and 4, however, in the sale deed property of Chanan Ram is missing and is replaced by hospital road which as per sale certificate and sale deed issued in favour of plaintiffs/respondents was on southern side of plot No.791A and additional plot purchased from Municipal Council.
14. Learned Courts, therefore, have rightly concluded that defendant No.1 had mischievously sold property to appellant/defendant No.2 vide Ex.D1 by including the property of plaintiffs/respondents and proforma defendants No.3 and 4 in their property by showing existence of 8 shops which plaintiffs/respondents are claiming to have been constructed after due permission from Municipal Council. No evidence has been led by defendants to show real dimensions of property No. 1972 allegedly owned by Murari Lal defendant No. 1 or any title in favour of Murari Lal defendant No. 1. The above conclusion is further supported by assertions made in Ex.D1 where it is specifically mentioned that if there is any dispute regarding dimensions/area of suit property, then it is vendee who shall be responsible and not the vendor as is duly mentioned in most of the sale 9 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 ::: deeds. The above noted clause in Ex.D1 sale deed in fact goes to show that defendant No.1 had mischievously included property of plaintiffs/respondents in sale deed Ex.D1 and sold the same to appellant/defendant No.2 without having any right/title over the same and in order to avoid his liability he shifted all responsibility to vendee i.e. defendant No. 2 who accepted the same.
15. Faced with this, learned counsel for appellant/defendant No.2 submits that in FIR registered against defendants on account of execution of sale deed Ex.D1 defendants have since been acquitted and even appeal has been dismissed, therefore, it is clearly made out that sale deed was validly executed. Argument is without any merit, as findings of criminal Court is not binding in civil proceedings. The standard of proof in criminal cases is different from civil proceedings. In proceedings before Civil Court the conclusion has to be drawn by Civil Courts independently on the basis of evidence before it and not on the basis of conclusion of criminal Courts wherein benefit of doubt goes to accused. Therefore, acquittal in criminal case would be of no help to the case of present appellant/defendant No.2. Mere wrong mentioning of boundaries in sale deed Ex.D1 without there being any right over the same would not give rise to any right in favour of appellant/defendant No.2. No other point was raised.
16. Both the Courts have concurrently appreciated the pleadings and evidence led by parties in accordance with law. Concurrent finding of facts, therefore, are upheld. No substantial question of law arises. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
10 of 11 ::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 :::
17. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly.
(PARMOD GOYAL)
12.01.2026 JUDGE
chiranjeev
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
::: Downloaded on - 30-01-2026 22:12:27 :::