Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab vs Gurmel Singh And Anr. on 11 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR669
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. By this common order, I propose to dispose of two connected Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 1655 and 1656 of 1989, as common questions of law and fact are involved in both these appeals. Learned counsel representing the parties also suggest likewise. The bare minimum facts that need a necessary mention have, however, been extracted from Regular Second Appeal No. 1655 of 1989, The State of Punjab versus Gurmel Singh another.
2. Gurmel Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff), claiming ownership over the suit land on the basis of registered sale deed dated 15.1.1981 for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/- as also on the basis of possession pursuant to the sale deed aforesaid, filed a suit for possession against the appellant-State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant').
3. In the written statement that came to be filed by the defendant, cause of the plaintiff was sought to be opposed on the basis of gift made by Mahant Bhagwant Dass, owner of the property, who, earlier in point of time, as per the version of the plaintiff, sold the same very land, subject matter of the gift, vide registered sale deed dated 15.1.1981. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit land? OPP.
4. Whether S. Iqbal Singh Sidhu, Executive Magistrate, Gidderbaha had accepted the donation of the suit land bonafidely on behalf of the Pb. Govt. from the donor after making full enquiry as to the validity and genuineness of the donor's title? OPD
5. Relief."
4. Trial resulted in dismissing the suit by learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9.4.1986.' Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal, which has since been allowed vide judgment recorded by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dated 3.1.1989, thus, upsetting the judgment and decree passed by learned trial court. It is against the judgment passed by learned first Appellate Court that present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant.
5. Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appearing on behalf of the defendant-State, vehemently contends that sale deed, Ex. P-1, dated 15.1.1981 was bnly a paper transaction, as has been rightly held by leaned trial Court and the findings that have been arrived by learned trial Court on the basis of evidence should not have been upset by learned first Appellate Court. It is, however, not disputed that if sale deed dated 15.1.1981 is to be held to be a valid document, Mahant Bhagwant Dass would have no right whatsoever to gift the same very, land, subject matter of the sale. In arriving at a conclusion that sale deed, Ex. P-1, was a valid document and was for a consideration, learned first Appellate Court observed thus:-
"In order to prove the ownership by the plaintiff, he has examined Sh. R.S. Garg, Advocate, PW-1, who is the attesting witness of the sale deed, Ex.P-1 and Surinder Kumar the scribe of the same. Both are consistent in their statements that it was written at the instance of defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. PW-3 Tek Chand, who is the attorney of the plaintiff, has also lent corroboration to the version of the plaintiff regarding the purchase of the suit land by the plaintiff from defendant No. 1 on the basis of the duly proved sale deed, Ex.P-1.
The learned trial court has mainly decided issues No. 2 and 3 against the plaintiff on the ground that this is a paper transaction as no consideration passed on the basis of the sale deed. It was further found by the trial Court that possession was also not delivered to the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the sale deed. However, I am of the opinion that the findings given by the trial Court for discarding the sale deed are not tenable. As regards the execution of the sale deed, it stands duly proved by the statements of the attesting witness as well as of the scribe and particularly when there is no evidence to rebut their statements a made on oath. Defendant No. 1 Mahant Bhagwant Dass himself has not stepped into the witness box, moreover even in the written statement filed by him, he has no where categorically denied that no consideration was passed on the basis of this sale deed to him. A vague reply has been given that the same is denied for want of knowledge. This is no denial in the eye of law. When the execution of a document is proved, then onus shifts on to the other party to prove lack of consideration. I find that there is not even an iota of evidence on the file to prove lack of consideration. In the recital in the sale deed, it is mentioned that the consideration was already received by defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 1 himself has not come into the witness box to deny the receipt of consideration. Even in the written statement filed by him, there is no denial. So, it is not understood as to on what basis the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that this sale deed Ex.P-1 which stands duly proved by the statement of the attesting witness and scribe, is a paper transaction and is without consideration. The parties are to go by the pleadings. No evidence can be read which is beyond pleadings. This is not the case of the defendants that the sale deed, Ex.P-1, was without consideration. The learned trial Court has based his reasoning on conjectures and surmises and not on the material which is placed on the file. It is laid down in A.I.R. 1925 Lahore 147, Ram Chand v. Chhunun Mal that where the execution of a document is admitted or proved, contains a recital regarding the payment of the consideration, then the onus lies on the persons executing the document to prove that he did not recieve the consideration. Similarly, in A.I.R. 1974 Madras 30, The Macular Co-operative Marketing Society v. Salia Maiam and Ors., it is laid down that payment of the price is not essential for completion of sale. If the intention is that title should pass on registration, the sale is complete as soon as the deed is registered, whether the price has been paid or not. The purchaser is entitled to sue for possession, although he has not paid the price. In the instant case, the price was already paid as per recital in the sale deed. So, as soon as the sale deed was executed, the title immediately passed on to the plaintiff. Even otherwise, defendant No. 2 is stranger to the sale deed Ex.P-1. Defendant No. 2 cannot challenge this sale deed that it is without consideration or is a paper transaction. Here we find that it is only defendant No. 2, who has taken up this plea and who is a stranger to this sale deed. In A.I.R. 1951 Travancore Cochin 109 Chandi Avira v. Thomman Varley and Ors., it has been held that a plea that certain deeds are unsupported by consideration and therefore, inoperative is not available to utter strangers to the deeds, which stand good between the parties thereto. The sale deed Ex. P-l stands duly proved by the plaintiff and on the basis of this sale deed, it is the plaintiff who is the absolute owner of the suit land. The plea of non-receipt of consideration is not seriously challenged by defendant No. 1 neither there is any evidence on the file to prove this allegation."
6. The Court, in limited jurisdiction that it has while dealing with Regular Second Appeal, finds absolutely no error in the findings recorded by learned first Appellate Court, as extracted above.
7. Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, is, however, at pains to explain that attorney of the plaintiff, who appeared, deposed that the land sold was 2 kanals 12 marlas, whereas, total land sold vide sale deed, Ex.P-1, was 16 kanals. In that context, learned Additional A.G. has taken the Court through the findings recorded by learned trial Court, which read thus:-
"Tek Chand PW-3 has testified that Gunnel Singh vide sale deed Ex.P-1 had purchased from Bhagwant Dass 16 kanals of land whereas according to sale deed Ex.P-1 the suit land was exclusively not sold to the plaintiff but it was 16 kanals 16 marlas land which was purchased by the plaintiff and three more persons and the plaintiff has asserted in the plaint that vide sale deed Ex.P-1 he had purchased only 2 kanals 12 marlas land."
8. Aforesaid findings of learned trial Court appear to be an outcome of confusion. Concededly, there are two different sale deeds, vide which Mahant Bhagwant Dass sold property in two pieces to different set of persons, whereas, one sale deed consists of land measuring 16 kanals, in the other sale deed, it is only 2 kanals 12 marlas. It is significant to mention here that 2 kanals 12 marlas of land was sold to Gurmel Singh and 16 kanals to Brig. Joginder Singh. Before I may part with this order, I would like to mention that Mahant Bhagwant Dass was arrayed as party respondent. He had filed written statement to the necessary averments made in the plaintiff. His reply is an evasive denial, i.e. denied for want of knowledge. It is too well settled that unless specific pleadings, which may touch the merits of the case, are not specifically denied, the same shall amount to admission of the relevant facts pleaded in the corresponding Paras of the plaint.
9. Finding no merit in both these appeals, the same are dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.