Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir Singh vs Baldev Raj And Others on 25 August, 2010
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
R.S.A. No.2834 of 2008 (O&M) -1-
******
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No.2834 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of decision:25.08.2010
Ranbir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
Baldev Raj and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The plaintiff is in second appeal against judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court by which judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court has been reversed.
The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is owner of the land measuring 11 Kanals 16 Marlas, bearing Khewat/Khatauni No.117/197, Khasra Nos.39//16/2, 17, 24, 25/2, situated at village Pensal, Hadbast No.61, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. He has challenged sale deed No.1368/1 dated 09.01.1998 executed by him in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 6 on the ground that he was R.S.A. No.2834 of 2008 (O&M) -2- ****** born on 08.12.1980 and was a minor and the sale deed has been executed by defendant Nos.7 to 9, with whom he was living after the death of his parents, in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 6 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is illegal. The plaintiff has filed the suit after allegedly attaining majority. The suit is contested by defendant Nos.1 to 6 and defendant Nos.7 to 9 by filing separate written statements. However, the stands taken by all the defendants was same that the plaintiff was not minor when the sale deed was executed on 09.01.1998 as he was born on 10.07.1979 and not on 08.12.1980. He had secured loan from Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur and State Bank of Patiala, Jagadhri on 12.01.1997 projecting himself to be major having been born on 10.07.1979. Therefore, he cannot challenge the validity of the sale deed dated 09.01.1998 claiming himself to be a minor at the time when the said sale deed was executed.
On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the Trial Court on 17.05.2001. Both the parties led their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 02.12.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiff by holding the sale deed dated 09.01.1998 to be null and void and the plaintiff was directed to return sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/- to defendant Nos.1 to 6 within two months from the date of the judgment and also further directed the plaintiff to affix ad valorem court fee on sale consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-, failing R.S.A. No.2834 of 2008 (O&M) -3- ****** which it was directed that the suit shall stand dismissed.
Aggrieved against judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court, defendant Nos.1 to 6 (vendees) came up in first appeal. The precise question of fact was as to whether at the time of execution of impugned sale deed dated 09.01.1998 the plaintiff was minor as alleged by him because if it is concluded on the basis of evidence that he was not a minor then his suit was not maintainable. The learned First Appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, recorded his finding as under: -
"10. The contentions on behalf of respondent No.1 that the plaintiff was born at Manakpur and that is why his address was so mentioned is not a valid defence because the permanent address should always be given correctly. It is, therefore, doubtful that the birth entry Ex.P6 belongs to the plaintiff and the record was produced only pertaining to the second certificate and not the entries from which the photostat copies was issued.
11. It is also important to note that the plaintiff has been changing his date of birth as per his convenience. In the affidavit sworn by him, before the sale deed in November 1997, he gave his date of birth as 10.07.1979 and also he applied for loan and submitted different applications for the same which are Ex.D7 to Ex.D10. He represented to the bank in the year 1997 that he was major and got loan sanctioned from there and also Ex.D11 R.S.A. No.2834 of 2008 (O&M) -4- ****** statement of account shows that eh loan was issued to him and certain deposits were also made.
14. It is also came in the cross-examination of the plaintiff that he was married in September 1998 and at that time he had completed 18 years in age. If he was above 18 years in September 1998, then how he could have been born in December 1980, also remains unexplained. He could have crossed 18 years only after 08.12.1998."
Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the appellant has basically tried to challenge the findings of fact recorded by the learned First Appellate Court on the ground that the findings are perverse based upon misreading of evidence. He has laid emphasis on the birth certificate in order to prove that the plaintiff was a minor having been born in the year 1980 and, therefore, sale of the property of the minor was null void which he could challenge within three years after attaining the age of majority. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, however, could not give any satisfactory answer to the Court as to why the plaintiff himself had sworn an affidavit dated 09.11.1997 (Mark `DA') in which he has categorically mentioned that he was born on 10.07.1979. As a matter of fact, when the plaintiff wanted to raise loan from the bank he became R.S.A. No.2834 of 2008 (O&M) -5- ****** major and after the sale when prices of the land has shot up manifold he has thought to become minor very conveniently. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. Moreover, it has been recorded in para No.14 of the impugned judgment that in his cross-examination, the plaintiff has stated that he was married in the month of September 1998 after completion of 18 years of age. The question is if he was 18 years of age in the month of September 1998, then how he could be born in December 1980 because he would cross the age of 18 years only after December 1980. Thus, in view of the findings of fact on the basis of which the learned First Appellate Court has dismissed suit of the plaintiff, I do not find any error in appreciation of evidence and no question of law much-less substantial is found to be involved in this appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 and as such, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
No costs.
August 25, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE