Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh And Others vs Dalbir Singh And Others on 9 October, 2025
Author: Amarinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Amarinder Singh Grewal
RSA No.3987
3987 of 2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
106 RSA No.
No.3987 of 2018 (O&M)
Reserved on:24.09.2025
Pronounced on
on:09.10.2025
Baldev Singh and others ...Appellants
Vs
Dalbir Singh and others ...Respondents
2. COCP No.267 of 2020 Baldev Singh and another ...Petitioners Vs Harphool Singh Gill and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.3987 of 2018. Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Advocate for petitioners in COCP No.267 of 2020. Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate forr respondents No.1 to 4 in RSA No.3987 of 2018. Mr. Aseem Kataria, Advocate for respondent No.29-PNB PNB in RSA No.3987 of 2018.
Mr. Ravinder Singh Rawal, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1-State State in COCP No.267 of 2020.
Mr. Navraj Singh Guron, Advocate for respondents No.6 to 8 & 13 in RSA No.3987 of 2018 for respondents No.2 to 4 in COCP No.267 of 2020.
-.-
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL J.
1. This order of mine shall dispose of regular second appeal bearing No.3987 of 2018 filed by the defendants challenging the judgment 1 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:15 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -2- and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2015 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the respondents respondents-plaintiffs has been set aside and while allowing the appeal of the respondents respondents-plaintiffs,, the suit was decreed; as well as the contempt petition bearing No.267 of 2020 filed by petitioners-defendants defendants against respondents No. No.2 to 4 (respondents No.9 to 11 in the regular second appeal), appeal), who willfully and deliberately violated the order dated 25.07.2018 passed by this Court Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to in terms of their status before the learned trial Court.
3. In brief, the facts are that Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur had entered into an agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 with Pritam Singh qua suit property i.e. 311 Kanals 5 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.
Rs.87.225/--, followed by sale deed dated 05.09.1968 and they were also put in possession of suit land in terms of the aforesaid agreement agreement. They also made improvements in the suit land. Plaintiffs are successor successors of Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur; whereas defendant defendant No.1 is son of Pritam Singh.. Pritam Singh along with one Inder Singh, predecessor--in interest of defendant No.2 in conspiracy with each other, brought into existence an ante ante-dated dated agreement to sell i.e. 08.04.1968, pertaining to suit property with one Battan attan Singh, who filed a suit for specific performance on 31.08.1968/03.10.1968 on the strength of alleged aforementioned agreement to sell. The parents of plaintiffs got themselves impleaded in the said case as defendant N Nos.3 3&4 as subsequent vendees.
vend Since
ince defendants N
No.1 & 2 chose not to contest the
2 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 :::
RSA No.3987
3987 of 2018 (O&M) -3-
suit, it resulted in passing of decree dated 17.01.1972,, which culminated into sale deed 10.12.1974 and consequently parents of plaintiffs were dispossessed from suit land. It was further pleaded that in an earlier suit bearing No. o. 297 of 1944 decided on 23.03.1948 titled as S. Rajwant Singh & Bibi Karam Kaur Vs. Dalpat Singh etc., predecessors in interest of defendants No.3 N to 23, a decree was passed for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs of the said suit namely Rajwant Singh and Karam Kaur were owners and entitled to possession of half share of suit land. Therefore, on the date of agreement in favour of Nikka Singh and Kartar ar Kaur as well as ante-dated d agreement to sell in favour of Battan Singh, the right/title of suit land did not vest in Pritam Singh and Beant Singh. Furthermore, fraudulent nature of transaction forming basis of decree for specific performance titled as Battan Singh Vs. Pritam Singh is also reflective from the fact that Pritam Singh was represented by Sh. V.N. Gandhi, Advocate, dvocate, who also represented Battan Singh. Thus, representation of a counsel in one suit on behalf of Pritam Singh and then to his adver adversary sary in another suit itself shows that the decree obtained was a collusive decree. It was also submitted that judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 came into knowledge of plaintiffs on 23.02.2011. Thus, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948, Pritam tam Singh and his father Beant Singh were not competent to enter into an agreement to sell of suit property to the extent of half share in favour of Battan Singh and thus, the sale deed executed on the strength of judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 passe passed by learned rned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, which was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 3 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -4- 20.08.1982 is liable to be set aside, as being vitiated by fraud 20.08.1982, fraud. The predecessors of plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement and they have got the sale deed executed against the payment of entire sale consideration but they were kept in dark about the previous decree passed on 23.03.1948.
4. It was also pleaded that out of su suit land Baldev Singh-defendant defendant No.2 has as already sold 20 kanals 19 marlas ma s of land in favour of defendants defendant No.24 24 & 25 and the said sale deeds are not bindi binding ng upon the plaintiffs and do not affect their rights. The remaining land ha had been equitably ably mortgaged by Baldev Singh in favour of Punjab National Bank, Raja Sansi and exchanged some of land with Pritpal Singh his son and Joginder Kaur his wife,, which fact came to the knowledge of plaintiffs when they obtained copies of mutation. Thus, a declaration eclaration was sought to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 passed by the court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, which was affirmed by this Court on 20.08.1982 alongwith sale deed dated 10.12.1974 be set aside with consequential relief of joint nt possession to the extent of half share.
5. On notice, defendant No.2 2 filed a written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, estoppel from filing the present suit, suit, barred by limitation and principl principle of res judicata as well as under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, jurisdiction, misjoinder and non-
non joinder of parties, property not being valued properly and pplaintiffs laintiffs having not come to the court with clean hands. On merits, all the material averments made in the plaint plaint are denied. It was stated that no agreement or 4 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -5- sale deed has been executed by Pritam Pritam Singh father of defendant N No.1, as alleged in the plaint and the said agreement or sale deed are forged and fabricated documents, which have already been discarded by y competent civil court. It was denied that Pritam Singh had hatched a conspiracy iracy with father of defendant No.2 No.2 and procured an ante ante-dated dated agreement of 08.04.1968. It was further stated that hat plea of plaintiffs that they came to know regarding fraud of the year 1968 in year 2011 is unbelievable. The agreement in favour of Battan Singh has already been declared legal and valid and the sale deed has been executed through the process of Court.
6. A separate written statement was filed by defendant N Nos.24 os.24 & 25 taking ing similar preliminary objections as were already taken by defendant No.2 o.2 in his written statement. One additional plea, which they took took, was that they were bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without any knowledge of any right of the plaintiffs.
plaintiffs. Even on merits they ha had denied the material averments made in the plaint and took a plea that they were put in possession of land purchased by them and mutati mutation on of land purchased by them had already been sanctioned.
7. Replication was also filed wherein plaintiffs had reiterated the factual matrix of the plaint and denied the averments made by defendants in their written statement.
8. From the pleadings of parties parties,, the learned trial Court has framed nine issues including relief. The plaintiffs in support of their pleadings, examined eight witnesses and tendered documents Ex.P1 to P33 & Ex.PX;; whereas defendants examined four witnesses and tendered 5 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -6- documents Ex.D1 to D3. On appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, however, in the appeal preferred before the learned 1st Appellate Court by the plaintiffs, judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was reversed by the learned 1st Appellate Court and suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.
9. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Muskan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants submitted that the learned 1st Appellate has gravely erred in decreeing the suit of the plaint plaintiffs iffs-
respondents while completely ignoring the fact that vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, Amritsar the plea of Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur of being bona fide purchasers was declined, which was upheld by this this Court as well in RFA No.225 of 1972 vide judgment dated da ed 20.08.1982. Furthermore, in the judgment passed by this Court, the balance sale consideration deposited by Battan Singh with the Executing Court was ordered to be given to Kartar Kaur and Nikka Sin Singh gh and not to Pritam Singh. They were also given liberty to sue Pritam Singh for return of balance sale consideration.. Therefore, the issue with respect to agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 and the sale deed dated 05.09.1968 has already been buried long back in the year 1982, which cannot be dug out in the year 2011 by filing a civil suit on the ground that the aforesaid decree dated 17.01.1972 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar, which was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 20.08.1982 was obtained by fraud. It was also submitted that the learned 1st Appellate Court decreed the 6 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -7- suit of the plaintiffs on the ground that Battan Singh was represented by one advocate namely Sh. V.N. Gandhi, who also represented Pritam Singh in the suit filed in the year 1944 and thus, despite having knowledge of the decree dated 23.03.1948 passed in the case titled as S. Rajwant Singh and Bibi Karam Kaur Vs. Dalpat Singh etc., etc., the same was not brought to the knowledge of the Court. Further, since Pritam Singh was not having valid title with respect to land measuring 290 kanals 16 marls of land, a fra fraud ud was committed upon the Court and thus, fraud vitiates everything. Mere representation by a counsel for a party, who also represented adversary in earlier litigation, cannot lead to a conclusion that a fraud was played upon the Court insofar as the issues issues in both the cases are different and no evidence is brought on record that there was a professional misconduct on the part of the said counsel. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by a Division Bench of Manipur High Court iin Sahid Mohammed Vs. State of Manipur in WP(C) No.917 of 2017 and other connected matter on 27.06.2023.
10. It was further submitted that PW PW-1 1 Dalbir Singh in his cross-
cross examination stated that he came to know about the decree dated 23.03.1948 in January, 2011 but he did not disclose the source of the same. If the agreement to sell executed between Battan Singh and Pritam Singh was invalid, as Pritam Singh was not having title of the suit property in view of judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 and the judgmen judgmentt and decree dated 17.01.1972 was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court, then the same rule applies to the respondents as well. In the absence of title in favour of 7 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -8- Pritam Singh qua the suit property, the agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 and the sale deed dated 05.09.1968 cannot be held to be valid and the respondents cannot claim title/possession on the basis of the same. The agreement to sell between Pritam Singh and Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur was executed on 01.09.1968 01.09.196 and the sale deed was exec executed uted within four days i.e. on 05.09.1968, which itself is sufficient to hold that the same was executed with a dubious intention.
11. It was also argued that the suit filed by the plaintiffs-
plaintiffs respondents was barred by limitation and merely by taking the plea of fraud, they cannot wriggle out from the law of limitation. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Hon ble Supreme Court in C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and others passed in Civil Appeal No.500 of 2022 decided on 30.09.2022 to contend that mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word 'fraud',, an attempt is made to get the suit within limitation,, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. It was further argued that allegations of misrepresentation and fraud even in civil cases are to be proved like a criminal charge by leading evidence.
ce. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Harvinder Kaur Vs. Mandeep Singh 2020(1) RCR (Civil) 785.
12. Per contra, Mr. Sunil Chadha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tara Dutt, Advocate appearing appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that in earlier round of litigation,, vide judgment and decree dated 8 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -9- 23.03.1948, Pritam Singh and his son Beant Singh were having held ownership of 145 kanals 8 marlas whereas the suit property was 311 kanals 5 marlas. Sh. V.N. Gandhi, Advocate, who represented Battan Singh, had also represented Pritam Singh in earlier litigation, which resulted into judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948. Thus, representation of Battan Singh in the civil suit by the counsel, who had also represented Pritam Singh in earlier litigation proves that they were hand in gloves with each other and the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 was obtained by pl playing ying fraud and since fraud vitiates everything, the aforesaid judgment and decree ddated ated 17.01.1972 as well as judgment dated 20.08.1982 were rightly set aside by the learned 1st Appellate Court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Hon ble Supreme Court in S.P. Changalvaraya Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs AIR 1994 SC 853 to Naidu (dead) by LRs Vs. Jagannath contend that a judgment or decree either of the first court or the highest court obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. It was also submitted that judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is based on correct appreciation of documentary as well as oral evidence and thus, no interference is required in the present appeal appeal, being devoid of merit.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their able assistance as well as the case laws cited.
14. The star argument of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents is that the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar was obtained by playing fraud upon the 9 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -10- Court,, which was duly subscribed by learned 1st Appellate Court while allowing the appeal and decreeing the suit of respondents respondents-plaintiffs, plaintiffs, coupled with thee fact that the Advocate, who earlier represented Pritam Singh in the proceedings which resulted into judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948, had also represented Battan Singh, thus, the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 was a collusive decree. However, in the opinion of this Court, the finding of fraud rendered by the learned 1st Appellate Court on the basis of argument raised qua obtaining decree dated 17.01.1972 by playing fraud upon the Court is wholly erroneous and misconceived. First of all, the agreement reement to sell executed between Pritam Singh and Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur, predecessor-in-interest predecessor interest of respondents respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs is dated 01.09.1968 and within four days of execution of the same, sale deed was executed on 05.09.1968. There is no explanati explanation on or finding as to what were the circumstances, which led the parties to execute the sale deed within four days of execution of the agreement to sell.. Secondly, Pritam Singh executed agreement to sell with Battan Singh on 08.04.1968 and the civil suit for fo specific performance was filed on 31.08.1968 (as is apparent from the decree dated 17.01.1972 wherein the date of presentation of plaint is mentioned as 31.08.1968).
31.08.1968 Though hough in the body of judgment, date of filing of suit is mentioned as 03.10.1968.
03.10.1968 However, in para No.10 of the judgment, it has been observed that plaintiff came to the office of Sub Registrar ready with money on 12.08.1968 but the defendant did not come and barely after a fortnight of the same,, the present suit was presented, presented meaning g thereby, the correct date of institution of the suit is 31.08.1968 and 10 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -11- not 03.10.1968. On the very next day i.e. 01.09.1968, Pritam Singh entered into agreement to sell with Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur. Therefore, the plea of respondents-plaintiffs respondents that at in order to defeat their case, an ante ante-dated dated agreement to sell was created by Pritam Singh in collusion with Battan Singh on 08.04.1968, 08.04.1968 falls flat. In fact, the manner in which the agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 was executed and further sale deed was executed within four days of execution of the same i.e. on 05.09.1968 leads to an inference that the said agreement was executed to defeat the rights accrued to Battan Singh in terms of agreement to sell dated 08.04.1968. Thirdly, agreement to sell dated dated 01.09.1968 was executed after the institution of the suit and thus, the same was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.
15. Further, the finding of learned 1st Appellate Court that Pritam Singh was not competent to enter into agreement to sell dated 08.04.1968 in favour of Battan Singh in view of judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 is again perverse. How the incompetency of Pritam Singh in executing an agreement to sell dated 08.04.1968 can help the respondents respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs in successfully raising their their claim for possession of the property on the basis of agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968, 01.09.1968, which is subsequent in time? How a thing wrong for one can be right for another? Moreover, the learned 1st Appellate Court has also misdirected itself by renderi rendering ng a finding that judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 was a collusive decree and was obtained by fraud due to representation made by Mr. V.N. Gandhi, Advocate for Battan Singh in the civil suit, who had also represented Pritam Singh in the proceedings, which which resulted into judgment and decree dated 11 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -12- 23.03.1948.. A minute perusal of judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 makes it crystal clear that the plaintiff had also impleaded Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur as defendants No.3 and 4, who in their written statement had supported the case of defendants No.1 and 2 i.e. Pritam Singh and Beant Singh. Further, defendants No.1 and 2 in the said suit had contested the suit by tooth and nail. The target date for execution of sale deed in terms of agreement to sell dated 08.04.1968 was 31.05.1968. Battan Singh had sent one Santa Singh on 25.05.1968 25.05.196 and 26.05.1968 to Pritam Singh and Beant Singh for execution of sale deed on the fixed date. On 28.05.1968, Battan Singh also purchased stamps in the name of Pritam Singh Singh.. Battan Singh along with his witnesses appeared before the Sub Sub-Registrar'ss office on 29.05.1968 and 30.05.1968 but Pritam Singh did not turn up. On 30.05.1968, when he returned from the office of Sub Registrar, he surprisingly received a telegram sent by Pritam Singh holding him responsible for non-execution non of the sale deed deed,, which was duly replied by him through his counsel Roshan Lal Lal Anand, Advocate. On 31.05.1968, Pritam Singh addressed another notice to Battan Singh, requiring him to get the sale completed within 24 hours. Battan Singh sent the balance sale consideration through money orders vide receipts Ex.P2 to P4. As 31.05.1968, 1968, was a holiday, Battan Singh again appeared before the Sub Registrar on 01.06.1968 and on failure of Pritam Singh in putting his presence, Battan Singh got his presence marked by making an application Ex.P8. The money orders sent by him were also ret returned urned by Pritam Singh vide Ex.P10 to P12. Last attempt was made to get the sale deed executed on 12 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -13- 12.08.1968 , which again proved futile due to absence of Pritam Singh. Had it been a collusive decree, there was no need for Battan Singh to implead Nikka Singh ngh and Kartar Kaur as defendants No.3 and 4 and further there was no need for Pritam Singh and Beant Singh to play a cat and mouse game with Battan Singh. Rather, on the very next day of filing of the suit, Pritam Singh executed agreement to sell in favo favour ur of Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur. Thus, the story seems to be other way round.
16. The finding of the learned 1st Appellate Court that Pritam Singh and Beant Singh did not contest the suit filed by Battan Singh and thus, the decree dated 17.01.1972 is a collusive collusive decree is also incorrect. The suit was contested by tooth and nail by Pritam Singh and Beant Singh as they filed the written statement and argued the suit vehemently. It was during the pendency of suit that a statement was made that suit of plaint plaintiff iff may be decreed but they should not be burdened with costs. That may be due to the reason that they had sensed their defeat and in order to avoid the burden of cost, they made the said statement. Further, tthe he learned trial Court while passing the decree decree dated 17.01.1972 has categorically observed that 'the the question of good faith cannot come in where the sale is made during the pendency of the litigation. On facts also I am not satisfied that Nikka Singh had not notice of the earlier agreement. The parties had exchanged notices, money orders had returned, and the lawyers lawyers had been approached when the impugned sale in favor of Nikka Singh and his wife took place just within four days of the agreement. It is improbable that such a matter would not get afloat in small village like Raja Sansi.' Sansi.' Thus, the suit was decreed ed due 13 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -14- to the fact that Pritam Singh and Beant Singh along with Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur had failed to prove the case as set up by them.
17. Whether Pritam Singh was owner of the suit property or not, cannot be a game changer for respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs iin n seeking possession of the suit property. The relief of possession of respondents respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs was based on the agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 and sale deed dated 05.09.1968, which after due deliberation have been discarded by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Judge, Amritsar and decree for specific performance was passed in favour of Battan Singh in terms of agreement to sell dated 08.04.1968. The litigation with respect to judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 is still going on and an outcome of the same would affect ffect the rights of Battan Singh, which he would be bound to suffer but that cannot be a ground for respondents plaintiffs to seek possession of suit property, once litigation respondents-plaintiffs with respect to agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 and sale deed dated 05.09.1968 8 has been put to rest by ordering payment of balance sale consideration in favour of Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur by Battan Singh and not to Pritam Singh. The correlation of old and new khasra number of suit property again cannot help the respondents respondents-plaintiffs ntiffs as they have to stand on their own legs and once agreement to sell dated 01.09.1968 and sale deed dated 05.09.1968 were held unsustainable in the eyes of law as Nikka Singh and Kartar Kaur were not held as bona fide purchasers,, they have no right to seek possession of the suit property. Battan Singh is bound to suffer the consequences of litigation pending between the respective 14 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -15- parties in terms of judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 but that cannot be a blessing in disguise for the respondents-pla respondents plaintiffs.
18. As discussed above, alleged concealment of judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 cannot be a ground to declare the judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 as non est in the eyes of law and so the representation made by Mr. V.N. Gandhi, Advocate for Battan Singh be also not a ground to alleged fraud.
fraud. Respondents Respondents-plaintiffs plaintiffs have failed to prove that there was any professional misconduct on behalf of Mr. V.N. Gandhi, Advocate while representing Battan Singh, rather conduct of the Pritam Singh, manifested mani that he was not willing to perform his part of the contract, which is further fortified from the fact that on the very next day of institution of suit by Battan Singh on 31.08.1968, he entered into an agreement to sell with Nikka Singh and Kartar Ka Kaur ur on 01.09.1968 and in a hustle bustle executed the sale deed also within four days from the date of execution of agreement to sell on 05.09.1968. On the contrary, he lingered on the execution of sale deed in respect of agreement to sell dated 08.04.1968 with Battan Singh on one pretext or the other.
19. In the judgment passed in S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu Naidu'ss case (supra) as relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4, property belonged to the appellants appellants-judgment debtors therein was purchased by one Jagannath, who was predecessor predecessor-in-interest of respondents from one Chunilal Sowcar-decree Sowcar decree holder in execution proceedings. However, vide registered deed dated 25.11.1945, Jagannath relinquished all his rights in the property in favour of of Chunilal Sowcar, the decree holder.
15 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 :::
RSA No.3987
3987 of 2018 (O&M) -16-
Meanwhile, appellants-judgment
appellants debtors had paid the total decretal amount
to Chunilal Sowcar.
Sowcar Once Chunilal
nilal Sowcar had received the decretal amount, he was not entitled to the property, which he had purc purchased hased through Jagannath. Without disclosing execution of release deed in favour of Chunilal Sowcar, Jagannath had filed a suit for partition of the property and obtained a preliminary decree. During the pendency of the suit, appellants did not have knowledge knowledge that Jagannath had relinquished all his rights in favour of Chunilal Sowcar and the same came to their knowledge at the time of hearing of the application for final decree. Despite payment of full decretal amount by appellants-judgment appellants judgment debtors to Chu Chunilal nilal Sowcar and execution of release deed by Jagannath relinquishing all his rights in the disputed property in favour of Chunilal Sowcar, Jagannath had filed suit for partition and also obtained preliminary decree. It is in this backdrop of the matter, the Hon'ble Hon ble Supreme Court rendered a finding that fraud vitiates everything. However, in the case in hand, the plea of fraud was raised on the ground that Pritam Singh had no valid title over the suit property in view of judgment and decree dated 23.03.1948 and thus, agreement to sell in favour of Battan Singh was invalid, much less, judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 .01.1972 was obtained by appellants-defendants appellants defendants by playing fraud upon the Court as they had concealed the factum of existence of decree dated 23.03.1948. If the agreement to sell in favour of Battan Singh was invalid on the ground that Pritam Singh was not having title of the suit property, it is incomprehensible as to how the agreement to sell executed in favour of predecessors of respondents-plaintiff respondents plaintiff became valid on the basis of which 16 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 ::: RSA No.3987 3987 of 2018 (O&M) -17- they had sought the relief of possession. The consequences of valid/invalid title passed by Pritam Singh through agreement to sell, followed by execution of sale deed through the process of Court in favour of Battan Singh are bound to be suffered by him, as proceedings in pursuance of decree dated 23.03.1948 are still going on on. Insofar as the case of the respondents respondents-plaintiffs is concerned, it has already been settled vide judgment and decree dated 17.01.1972 passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Amritsar and upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 20.08.1982 and they had made an attempt to reopen the same by raising the plea of fraud, which in the opinion of this Court, is wholly irrational and capricious.
20. Now coming to the contempt petition in which respondents No.2 to 4 were sought to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for violation of order dated 25.07.2018 passed by this Court in accompanied regular second appeal. Order dated 25.07.2018 is reproduced as under:
under:-
"Admitted.
Status quo with regard to possession shall be maintained.
maintained."
The argument raised by petitioners is that respondents No.2 to 4 have alienated 7 kanals 11 marls of the suit land to Baljit Singh and Surjit Singh. A perusal of aforesaid order makes it crystal clear that status quo was granted with respect to possession and there was no impediment in alienating the suit property. There is no contention raised by petitioners that they are in possession and their possession is disturbed. Hence, no ground is made out to o initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against respondents No.2 to 4.
17 of 18
::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 :::
RSA No.3987
3987 of 2018 (O&M) -18-
21. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, R Randhir andhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. 1918
22. As an upshot of above discussion, the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2018 passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is set aside and the suit of respondent-plaintiffs respondent plaintiffs is dismissed dismissed. Resultantly, the he regular second appeal is allowed. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The contempt petition is dismissed.
23. Pending misc. application(s), if any, als also o stand disposed of including IOIN RSA No.3987 of 2018 wherein registry is directed to carry out necessary correction to the effect that vakalatnama of Mr. R.S. Guron, Advocate is taken on record on behalf of respondent No.13 instead of respondent No.3.
(AMARINDER AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL GREWAL) JUDGE October 09, 09 2025 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes 18 of 18 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2025 01:02:16 :::