Punjab-Haryana High Court
Daulat Ram & Ors vs Ram Partap & Anr on 25 May, 2018
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No.1441 of 2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 25.05.2018
Daulat Ram and others
.....Appellants
versus
Ram Partap and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
Present: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate for the appellant
..
AMIT RAWAL, J.(Oral):
The appellants-defendants have not been successful in defending the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs seeking declaration and permanent injunction vis-à-vis the acts done by the defendants by executing two release deeds dated 05.03.2001 and 03.04.2001 on the basis of the revenue entries executed in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8 being not binding on their right, title and interest owing to acquisition of title and interest by the plaintiffs by virtue of two sale deeds dated 06.08.1984 and 09.08.1984 bearing Wasika No.4468 and 4568, respectively, against valuable consideration on the premise that the aforementioned sale deeds were reflected in the revenue record but the mutation was not sanctioned and the defendants by taking advantage of factual error transferred the property vide the release deeds aforementioned. The defence of the appellants-defendants in the suit has been that the sale deeds ibid were sham, bogus and forged documents and, therefore, they conferred no right or title in favour of the plaintiffs and supported the release deeds.
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 09-07-2018 07:07:46 :::
RSA-1441-2014 - 2 -
2. On the preponderance of evidence, the trial court decreed the suit and the appeal laid before the lower appellate court was also dismissed. It is in this background the defendants have come in the present regular second appeal.
3. Mr. Aditya Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-defendants submitted that the two release deeds were couched in the suit for declaration and injunction. Concededly, the plaintiffs and the defendants i.e. the beneficiaries of the release deeds are the co-sharers and in the absence of any proof regarding exclusive ownership and possession the Courts below ought not to have granted injunction as it is against the mandate of law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for appellants-defendants and appraised the paper-book and am of the view that there is no force and merit in the arguments raised before me.
5. As per the tenor and mode of the defence taken in the written statement, challenge was laid to the aforementioned sale deeds on the premise of mutation being not effected in respect thereof. However, on the contrary, the respondents-plaintiffs have proved the execution and registration of the sale deeds much less the passing of the sale consideration by examining the attesting witnesses. It is a settled law that mutation does not confer title. Any registered document preceding to the subsequent registered document would carry weight, for, the executant of the subsequent document would not have a right, title or interest in the property, for, a person who has already transferred share in the property cannot subsequently re-transfer the property by virtue of another registered document. The aforementioned act at the behest of the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-07-2018 07:07:46 ::: RSA-1441-2014 - 3 -
defendants was done on the premise that mutation was not effected. The registered document carries a presumption of truth. All these facts had been examined by the Courts below in extenso. There has been categoric pleadings and evidence on record to establish the exclusive possession as the sale deeds aforementioned are of 1984, whereas, the alleged release deeds are of 2001 i.e. almost 17 years thereafter. During all this period the beneficiaries of the sale deeds of 1984 had been enjoying possession and thus, on consideration of the aforementioned facts the Courts below granted the injunction. Therefore, such plea is rejected.
6. No ground for interference is made out. No question of law much less a substantial question of law is involved.
7. Dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) 25.05.2018 JUDGE parkash NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 09-07-2018 07:07:46 :::