Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santa Singh vs Tarsem Singh on 7 December, 2010
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
R.S.A. No.1276 of 1985 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No.1276 of 1985(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 7.12.2010
Santa Singh APPELLANT
VERSUS
Tarsem Singh RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Shri M.S.Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Shri P.S.Baath, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms.Sukhpreet Kaur, Advocate for the respondent.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant and is directed against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 2.8.1982 as also of the First Appellate Court dated 3.9.1984.
In a suit filed by the appellant on the plea that he is the sole owner and in exclusive possession of the suit property including the construction existing thereon, he prayed for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of R.S.A. No.1276 of 1985 -2- the suit property and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respspondent from making any construction on the property in dispute without the consent of the appellant. It was further pleaded by the appellant that he made construction over the suit property by spending huge amount of money over a period of time and that he never executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent which is as a result of fraud and misrepresentation and was probably got executed when he was not in a sound disposition in January, 1980. He also sought to cast an aspersion on the sale deed by pleading that the property was worth more than Rs.75,000/- and could not have been alienated in favour of the respondent for a meagre sum of Rs.39,000/-.
The suit was resisted by the respondent to plead that the sale deed was genuine and the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation were wrong and also pleaded that the appellant was precluded from filing the instant suit because of his conduct. The following issues were framed :-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is the owner and possession of the building in dispute ? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff sold the site of the building in dispute to the defendant vide a valid sale deed dated 18.1.1980 ? OPD. (3) If issue No.2 is proved, whether the sale deed is the result of fraud and mis-representation as alleged ? and without consideration ? OPD.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue by his act and conduct? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit is properly valued for purposes of court fee
and jurisdiction ? OPP.
(7) Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs u/s 35A
C.P.C.
(8) Relief.
Upon a perusal of the record available before it, the learned trial R.S.A. No.1276 of 1985 -3- Court dismissed the suit and the First Appellate Court did likewise,when an appeal was preferred before it.
To assail the findings of both the courts below, the instant regular second appeal has been preferred.
Learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the fact that the property was worth more than Rs.75,000/- and could not have been alienated for a meagre sum of Rs.3900/- in favour of the respondent who was his son and in any eventuality, there was no necessity of making a sale deed in favour of the son when the same would have in any case gone to him. He thus, contends that the findings recorded by the courts below are totally erroneous and liable to be set aside. He pleaded that father has been duped by the son.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has stated that the plea of fraud and forgery as set up by the appellant having not been proved, the findings of both the courts below do not warrant any interference.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also the record.
The foremost principle of law is that a person who alleges a fact, must necessarily prove it. The appellant/plaintiff pleads fraud and misrepresentation, but has been unable to prove the same from any cogent evidence on record. He has not denied his signatures on the sale deed and has only set up the plea of misrepresentation and having executed a sale deed when he was not in sound disposition of mind. No such evidence exists on the file. Besides, it is also in evidence that appellant was the Sarpanch of the village for a number of years and it is inconceivable that a person who is the Sarpanch of the village, would so easily be lured into executing a sale deed of his property. The beneficiary of the sale deed is none else, but his son and the facts suggest an arrangement within the family which is sought to be questioned when the relations R.S.A. No.1276 of 1985 -4- probably became sour . There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant was suffering from any mental duress at any point of time or at the time of the execution of the sale deed. Even at the time of sanctioning of the mutation pursuant to the sale deed, the appellant was present, as is evident from a perusal of Ex.D.3.
It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the respondent is since dead and the learned counsel for the appellant candidly conceded that he has not been able to contact his client despite several attempts to do so.
For the aforementioned reasons when there is no evidence to suggest fraud and misrepresentation, the findings recorded by both the courts below do not warrant any interference, more so, when there is no specific question of law which arises for consideration of this Court.
No ground to interfere.
Dismissed.
( MAHESH GROVER )
December 7, 2010 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO