Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh vs Ishari & Ors on 19 March, 2026
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 19th, 2026
Dilbagh Singh (since deceased) through LRs
.....Appellants
Versus
Ishri (since deceased) through LRs and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Mr. Nitin Sansanwal,
Mr. Namish Sodhi and Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocates
for the appellants.
Mr. Amrinder Sidhu, Advocate
for respondent No.2
and LR of respondent No.1.
Mr. Rai Singh Chauhan
and Ms. Deepika Chauhan, Advocates
for respondents No.3 and 4.
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
INDEX Paragraph(s) Page(s)
1. Challenge in the present appeal 1-2 1-2
2. Arguments on behalf of the 3-6 2-5 appellant(s)/legal representatives of defendant No.2 3. Arguments on behalf of the 7 5 respondents/defendants No.1, 3 and 4 (also pursuing the case on behalf of the plaintiff)
4. Analysis and findings 8-32 5-21 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL
1. Defendant No.2 had filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, and the same is now being pursued by his legal representatives. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 11.11.1992 passed by the First Appellate Court vide which the First I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 2 Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.01.1990 passed by the trial Court and after setting aside the said judgment and decree, had decreed the suit of respondent No.1-plaintiff, which had been dismissed by the trial Court.
2. The appellant in the present case is "defendant No.2", respondent No.1 is the "plaintiff" and respondents No.2 to 4 are the "defendants No.1, 3 and 4".
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT(S)/LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANT NO.2
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, the judgment of the First Appellate Court deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that issue No.6 to the effect whether the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 was a result of fraud and misrepresentation, was specifically framed and was decided by the trial Court in favour of the appellants and against the plaintiff. It is submitted that even the First Appellate Court has recorded that the plea of fraud and misrepresentation covered under issue No.6 is not proved. It is submitted that the First Appellate Court has observed that on account of reasonable interference it can be said that the sale deed (Ex.D-1) is without consideration. It is argued that the said observations are based on conjectures and surmises and in case a registered document is to be set aside, the same cannot be set aside on the basis of said observations. It is further argued that a perusal of the sale deed (Ex.D-1) would show that in the said sale deed, it has specifically been mentioned that sale consideration of ₹12,000/- had been paid. The fact that the same is a sale deed and was duly registered PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 before the Sub Registrar and was attested by Lambardar Amar Singh as well I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 3 as Swaran Singh and was scribed by Kulbhushan, Deed Writer, has been duly proved on record. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that a registered sale deed carries a presumption with it and no oral evidence contrary to the recitals mentioned in the sale deed is admissible. In the said regard, reference has been made to Section 91 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 94 BSA, 2023).
4. It is further submitted that the sale deed (Ex.D1) carries an endorsement which also clearly shows that the transaction took place before the Tehsildar and the said endorsement also carries a presumption with it under Section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908. Learned counsel has further referred to the evidence of the plaintiff, who is the sole witness examined by the plaintiff and has highlighted that in her cross-examination, she has submitted that she had affixed her thumb impression before Kulbhushan Dutt and had also affixed the same out of her own free will. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not examined any attesting witness or scribe or any independent witness to even remotely prove the plea of fraud, misrepresentation or even her plea that no consideration was paid. It is submitted that it is a matter of settled law that onus in such a situation is on the plaintiff, which has not even been remotely discharged whereas on the other hand, it is defendant No.2 who have produced Kulbhushan Dutt, Deed Writer as DW-1 and Swaran Singh, the attesting witness as DW-3, who have duly proved the due execution of the sale deed and also the fact that the sale deed is with consideration. It is submitted that additionally, the appellant- defendant No.2 had examined himself as DW-2, who had fully supported the case of defendant No.2.
PUNEET SACHDEVA2026.03.23 17:15 5. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 4 present case, initially defendants No.1, 3 and 4 had denied the averments in the plaint and had called for dismissal of the plaint and the said written statement was never amended and thus, the subsequent statement made by the said defendants for decreeing the suit was beyond pleadings and was not permissible and clearly shows that the same was an act of collusion. It is argued that the present appellants have moved an application for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to show that the plaintiff-Ishri, who has since died, had executed a Will dated 01.12.1992 in favour of Darbara Singh-defendant No.1 and it was in view of the said fact and circumstance that the said defendant No.1 who had earlier filed the written statement in which prayer for dismissal of the suit was made, had subsequently in collusion with the plaintiff given a statement in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the cases of Vidhyadhar Versus Mankikrao and another reported as 1999 AIR Supreme Court 1441, Kaliaperumal Versus Rajagopal & Anr reported as 2009(2) RCR (Civil) 471, Dahiben Versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr Lrs & Ors. reported as 2020(3) RCR (Civil) 98 and M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rambha Devi reported as 2025 (1) RCR (Civil) 5. It is submitted that the judgment of the First Appellate Court be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court be upheld.
6. Respondent No.1 has died and it has been jointly submitted before this Court that for the purpose of the present appeal, respondents No.2 to 4 are pursuing the case on her behalf as for the purpose of the present appeal, the present appellants have an interest contrary to the interest PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 of the plaintiff. It is further jointly submitted that as far as the estate of the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 5 deceased-plaintiff is concerned, the same be considered in separate proceedings.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS NO.1, 3 AND 4 (ALSO PURSUING THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF)
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 4 have jointly submitted that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld. It is submitted that in the present case, it is not proved that any consideration had been paid to the plaintiff and thus the sale deed which was without consideration was void. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shanti Devi Versus Jagan Devi and Ors. reported as 2025(4) RCR (Civil)
202. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-Darbara Singh has further highlighted that the sale deed was also in favour of respondent No.2, however, the stand of respondent No.2 is that there was no sale consideration paid and thus respondent No.2, in spite of being a beneficiary, was stating the correct facts before the Court and, therefore, the judgment of the First Appellate Court should be upheld. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.1 that respondent No.2 had been taking care of his mother and it is on account of said care that the Will dated 01.12.1992 had been executed by plaintiff-Ishri in favour of respondent No.2. It is further submitted that as far as estate of Ishri is concerned, the same be considered in separate proceedings.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the appellants as well PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 as learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 who are also pursuing the I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 6 present appeal on behalf of respondent No.1, who has died, although vide order dated 27.09.1993, appellant as well as respondents No.2 to 4 were impleaded as legal representatives of the said respondent No.1 subject to just exceptions.
9. The plaintiff had filed a suit with a prayer which was detailed in the head note of the plaint and the said headnote is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Suit for declaration to the effect that the land measuring 68 kls. 15 mls. comprised in khewat No.179, khatauni No.294, Kh.Nos. 8//18 (5-14), 9(8-0), 10/13(4-16),18/2(1-17), 22//21 (7-7), 23//24/1 (0-18), 25/2(7-3), 25/1(8-0), 2(8-0), 8/2(1-0), 9/1 (2-12), 9/3(5-8), 10(8-0), entered in jamabandi 1982, situated in the area of village Rakkran Bet, H.B.No.467, P.S, and tehsil Balachaur, is the jointly owned and, possessed by the parties in which pliff has 1/5th share which comes 13 kls. 15 mls., mutation No.1549, regarding some alleged sale is again law and ineffective against the rights of the pliff and the alleged sale by the pliff in favour of defts No.1 and 2 in respect of 13 kls. 15 mls. of land, is false bogus, without consideration, ineffective against the rights of the pliff and a result of misrepresentation and fraud played upon the pliff by defts No.1 and 2, consequential relief suit for permanent injunction restraining defts No.1 and 2 from alienating or mortgaging any part of suit property, in the alternative, suit for possession of above said suit land fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint."
10. It was the case of the plaintiff that she had never executed any sale deed in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and in case any sale deed was proved, then, the same was a result of fraud and misrepresentation and was null and void. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that in fact she had gone to the Court premises to execute a Will of her share in favour of her son but the sale deed was got executed without payment of any consideration. The plaintiff had also made an alternate prayer for decree of possession of the suit land.
PUNEET SACHDEVA2026.03.23 17:15 11. I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Defendants No.1, 3 and 4, who are respondents No.2 to 4 in the Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 7 present case and are opposing the present appeal, had filed a joint written statement dated 25.08.1987 in which a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. It is not disputed before this Court that no application for amendment of the said written statement was filed nor the said written statement was amended. It has been argued on behalf of defendants No.1, 3 and 4 that subsequently statement was made by them in favour of the plaintiff stating that the suit be decreed. The said statement was thus apparently contrary to the pleaded case of the defendants No.1, 3 and 4.
12. Defendant No.2, who has filed the present appeal, had raised several objections in his written statement and had stated that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and it was further stated that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit by her own act and conduct. It was further the specific case of defendant No.2 that the land in question was sold for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1985 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 in equal share and that the plaintiff had executed the said sale deed voluntarily, with a free will and for a consideration and no fraud had been committed with her and that the sale deed was a genuine and valid document. It was further pleaded that defendant No.2 was not in good terms with other defendants and thus, the suit had been filed by the plaintiff in collusion with them at their instance, as they wanted to usurp the land which was purchased by defendant No.2. It was also specifically pleaded that defendant No.2 was in possession of the land from the date of sale and even mutation on the basis of sale deed had been duly sanctioned in the presence of the plaintiff and she had not raised any objection. The details of the payment were also PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 given and it was further specifically stated that the plaintiff had received I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 8 money for "Nanakchak" of her grand son and grand daughter, for which she had no money, from the answering defendant and had also received money for other domestic / personal expenses.
13. It would be relevant to note that at the time of passing of the final judgment, the trial Court had noticed that only counsel for the plaintiff and for defendant No.2 had appeared and the other defendants i.e., defendants No.1, 3 and 4, who are now opposing the present appeal, were proceeded against ex parte after having given a statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff, which statement was contrary to the written statement filed by the said defendants No.1, 3 and 4. The trial Court had framed the following issues in the case:-
"1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner to the extent of 1/5th share in the suit land, if so its effect?OPP
2. Whether the suit is not properly valued for purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction?OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to file this suit?OPP.
4. Whether the suit is collusive with defendants No.1,3 and 4?OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff executed sale deed dated 18.11.85 for consideration in favour of defendants No.1 and 2? If so its effect?OPP
6.If issue No.5 is proved, whether the sale deed is the result of fraud and mis- representation?OPP.
7. Relief."
14. It was noticed by the trial Court that the plaintiff had examined only one witness i.e., herself as PW-1, whereas defendant No.2 apart from examining himself as DW-2, had examined the attesting witness of sale deed Swaran Singh as DW-3 and Kulbhushan Dutt, deed writer as DW-1. The trial Court vide detailed judgment and decree dated 15.01.1990 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Under issues No.1, 5 and 6, the trial Court had held that the sale deed was a genuine document and had been duly proved on PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 record. It was further observed that the plea that the plaintiff had gone to get I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 9 a Will of her share executed in favour of her son was a concocted plea, inasmuch as, the sale deed was duly attested by the Lambardar of the village as well as by the deed writer-Kulbhushan Dutt with whom there was no enmity of the plaintiff. The trial Court took into consideration the evidence of PW-1 in which the said plaintiff had duly admitted that her thumb impression before Kulbhushan Dutt, deed writer was affixed voluntarily. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that DW-1 scribe of the sale deed as well as DW-2 Dilbagh Singh and DW-3 Swaran Singh, who was the attesting witness, had given due evidence with respect to paying of consideration for executing the sale deed and also the fact that the contents of the sale deed were read over to the plaintiff and that the said sale deed was duly entered at sr.no.1520 and further that the consideration had been received by the plaintiff in order to meet the expenses of "Nanakchak" and other expenses. The fact that the sale deed was registered before the Sub- Registrar / Tehsildar who had read over the contents of the same to Ishri and she had thumb marked the same in token of its correctness was also taken into consideration. It was noted that merely because defendants No.1, 3 and 4 were now siding with the plaintiff would not call for decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Accordingly, issues No.1, 5 and 6 were decided against the plaintiff and in favour of defendants No.2.
15. Importantly, issue No.3 which was with respect to the locus standi of the plaintiff was decided by the trial Court in favour of the defendants and it was held that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. It would be relevant to note that the said issue has not been reversed by the First Appellate Court and thus, the judgment of the First Appellate Court PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 suffers from the said legal infirmity also, as the suit of the plaintiff could not I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 10 have been decreed by the First Appellate Court without specifically reversing the finding under issue No.3. Under issue No.4, it was observed that defendants No.1, 3 and 4 in their written statement had denied the averments made in the plaint and had called for dismissal of the suit but subsequently they had given a statement in favour of the plaintiff. It was observed that from the overall facts and circumstances, it was apparent that there was collusion between the plaintiff and defendants No.1,3 and 4 in order to jeopardise the rights of defendant No.2.
16. The plaintiff filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree dated 15.01.1990. It would be relevant to note that defendants No.1, 3 and 4 did not file any appeal against the said judgment and decree and thus, were apparently satisfied with the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff. The said aspect becomes material in view of the fact that the plaintiff has died and present appellant-defendant No.2 as well as defendants No.1,3 and 4 have been impleaded as legal representative of said respondent No.1, and before this Court, it is the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 who have opposed the present appeal. The said defendants No.1, 3 and 4 were ex-parte before the trial Court and in spite of dismissal of the suit they did not file any appeal before the First Appellate Court. A perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court would show that the finding with respect to issue No.6 of the trial Court was not disturbed. Thus, the trial Court as well as First Appellate Court concurrently decided the said issue No.6, which was with respect to the plea of fraud and misrepresentation, in favour of defendant No.2-present appellant. No cross objection has been filed by the respondents before this Court and finding on issue No.6 has not been challenged. Thus, PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 the finding to the effect that there was no fraud and misrepresentation and I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 11 the plea of the plaintiff to the effect that she had gone to the Court to get the Will executed which stood rejected by both the Court, have attained finality.
17. The First Appellate Court had in para 14 observed that a reasonable interference can be drawn that the sale deed (Ex. D1) is without consideration and consequently void. The fact that defendant No.1 was also the beneficiary of the sale deed and had subsequently made a statement in favour of the plaintiff, was taken into consideration to reverse the finding of the trial Court. In the opinion of this Court, the said observations cannot be made the basis for setting aside the registered sale deed in the light of the evidence on record and other facts and circumstances. In fact no positive specific finding even on the aspect of lack of consideration was given and apparently, the First Appellate Court had drawn inferences which were also result of misreading of the evidence and the documents on record. It is reiterated that the finding under issue No.3 was not reversed and thus, the finding by the trial Court under issue No.3 stands and thus, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is self contradictory, inasmuch as, on one hand, the plaintiff is held to be not having any locus standi to file the present suit, whereas on the other hand, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed.
18. The sale deed has been duly exhibited on record as Ex.D1. The translation of the said sale deed was done by the Registry of this Court in pursuance of the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. A perusal of the translated sale deed would show that it has specifically been stated that the sale deed has been executed for a consideration of Rs.12,000/- half of which comes to Rs.6000/- and there is also a specific recital to the effect that the plaintiff had received the entire PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 sale consideration at home for the sake of "nanakchak" and personal I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 12 expenses. It was further stated that the possession of the property was delivered to the purchaser on the date of execution of the sale deed and that expenses of the sale deed had been borne by the purchasers. Recitals in a registered document carry a very strong presumption and heavy onus relies upon the plaintiff to rebut the same. In the present case, it would be relevant to note that the plaintiff had neither examined the attesting witness nor the scribe nor any other independent witness and had not led any evidence to rebut the said strong presumption in favour of the recitals in the registered document, except making her self serving statement as PW-1. The said sale deed was attested by Amar Singh Lambardar and Swaran Singh, who had been examined as DW-3. Kulbhushan Dutt, deed writer had been examined as DW-1. A perusal of the vernacular of Ex.D1, which was placed on record of the trial Court, would show that the plaintiff has thumb marked the sale deed on the first page as well as on the second page and also at two places on the back page, where the endorsement under Section 60 of the Registration Act has been made. The endorsement which has been duly exhibited as Ex.D1/A has also been translated by the translation branch of this Court. The said true translation is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"501 1000+500=1500 Smt. Ishri widow of Babu Ram r/o Village 18-11-85 Rakran Bet Tehsil Balachaur, Sale Deed Sd/-
Asstt. Treasury Officer Balachaur (Hoshiarpur) 18-11-85 Executant Today i.e. 18.11.85, on Monday at about 3-4 o' clock, this Sd/-Ishri writing was presented in the office of Sub-Registrar, (with thumb (misprint), District Hoshiarpur by Smt. Ishri widow of Babu Impression) r/o village Rakran Bet for registration.
Sd/-
PUNEET SACHDEVA Sub Registrar
2026.03.23 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and Balachaur
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 13
18-11-85
(Stamp not legible) being misprint
Vendor From Vendees
Sd/-Ishri Sd/-Dalbagh Singh
(with thumb (with thumb
Impression) Impression)
Sd/- (Amar Singh, Witness
Nambardar) Sd/- (Swaran Singh)
(In Urdu) In English
Signature and left right
thumb impressions
appended/affixed in my
presence.
Sd/-
Sub Registrar
Balachaur
18-11-85"
19. A perusal of the above would show that the Sub Registrar has duly endorsed the fact that the plaintiff has presented the writing i.e., the sale deed in the office of the Sub Registrar and even at the time of the endorsement, Lambardar as well as the other attesting witness Swaran Singh were present and have duly signed the same. Under Section 60(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, the certificate of registration which has been signed by the Sub Registrar / Registering Officer is per se admissible for proving that the document has been duly registered in the manner provided by the Act and the facts which have been mentioned in the endorsement have occurred in the manner mentioned therein.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of " Hemalatha (D) by LRs Vs. Tukaram (D) by LRs & Ors.", reported as 2026 INSC 82 had observed that it is a settled position of law that a registered sale deed PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness and that I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 14 registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document and thus, a Court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a "sham" and the Court should be cautious against the growing tendency to challenge registered instruments 'at the drop of a hat' and in case the sanctity of registered documents is diluted, it would erode public confidence in property transactions and jeopardize the security of titles. It was further observed that a person alleging that a registered deed is sham and without consideration etc. must satisfy a rigorous standard of pleading by making clear, cogent, convincing averments and provide material particulars in his pleadings and evidence. In the said case, the allegations/arguments raised with respect to inadequacy of consideration was rejected by observing that mere allegations of inadequacy of consideration does not make the deed void.
21. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jasvir Singh Vs. Mohan Singh and others reported as 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 654, had considered in detail the procedure for the purpose of registration of documents. Sections 32, 34 and 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 were taken into consideration and after considering the said provisions, it was observed that strong presumption is attached about the correctness of the contents of the Registration Certificate, which certified that in fact the person therein himself had appeared before the Sub Registrar and had admitted the execution of the sale deed therein. It would be relevant to note that SLP filed against the said judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.09.2010. The law laid down in the abovesaid judgment would also apply in the present case, inasmuch as, execution of the sale deed as PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 well as the endorsement has been duly proved in the present case and there I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 15 is nothing on record to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the same.
To the similar effect, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Dass and others vs. Smt.Devki and others reported as 1978 PLR 390 had observed that a reading of provisions of India Registration Act, moreso, Sections 58, 59 and 60 leads to the conclusion that registration of a document is a solemn act to be performed in the presence of a competent officer whose function is to ensure that proper persons are before him and are identified to his satisfaction and further that all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature, would be presumed to be in order and duly done. In the said case it was further observed that in view of the contents of endorsement, it was not necessary for Shiv Dass (party therein) to produce any other evidence apart from the certified copy of deed in proof of execution of it.
22. The sole witness examined by the plaintiff to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the said document is the plaintiff herself as PW-1, who has not even remotely rebutted the said presumption. A perusal of the evidence and cross-examination of the said witness would show that she had admitted that she had affixed her thumb impression on the document with her own free will. Further in the cross-examination, the said PW-1 had stated that Amar Singh Lambardar, belongs to their village and there is no enmity with him and that the writing was scribed by Bhushan (DW-1) at Balachaur and she did not have any enmity with Bhushan. Importantly, the said PW1 in her cross-examination had stated that Charan Singh (defendant No.3) and others had stated that they will not let her reside with them in case the land is given by her to Dilbagh Singh, the present appellant. From the PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 above evidence, it is apparent that the said PW1 had specifically stated that I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 16 she had affixed thumb impression out of her own free will and that it was under pressure from defendant No.3 and other defendants that the present suit has been filed. No other evidence had been led by the plaintiff to rebut the strong presumption in favour of the registered document.
23. On the other hand, the defendants had examined three witnesses. DW3-Swaran Singh is the attesting witness of the sale deed who had specifically stated that the sale deed was scribed in Balachaur by Bhushan (DW-1), at the instance of Ishri (plaintiff) and that he and Amar Singh Lambardar had put their testimonies and after scribing of the said sale deed, the same was read over to Ishri and she had affixed her thumb impression in the presence of the witnesses, after admitting the same to be correct. It was further stated by the said witness that Ishri/plaintiff had told him that she had received the money for 'Nanakchak' and other expenses already and that he had seen the original sale deed and had identified his signatures on the said sale deed which was exhibited as Ex.D1. It was further stated that the deed writer had entered the sale deed in his register and it was Ishri who had presented the sale deed for registration and even Tehsildar had read over the said sale deed in their presence and the plaintiff-Ishri had affixed thumb impression after admitting the same to be correct. The said witness had also identified his signatures on the endorsement Ex.D1/A. It was further stated by the said witness that the plaintiff had executed the sale deed out of her free will and there was no fraud of any kind. Even in his cross-examination, the said DW-3 had stated that his signatures were appended at four places.
24. DW-1 Kulbhushan Dutt, who is the deed writer, had also fully PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 supported the case of the defendant No.2 and had proved the execution of I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 17 the sale deed and had stated that the sale deed was scribed and read over to the plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses and that he was working as a Deed Writer at Balachaur for the last 35 years and he maintained a register as per rule and that he had brought the original register which was verified by the sub-registrar. In his cross-examination he also reiterated the fact that Ishri had put four thumb impressions on the register sale deed/endorsement. Dilbagh Singh, the present appellant had appeared as DW2 and had fully proved his stand and had specifically stated that the sale consideration was Rs.12,000/- and the sale deed was duly attested by two witnesses and the possession was taken at the time of the sale and had further stated that the Tehsildar had read over the sale deed and that plaintiff No.1 had admitted before the Tehsildar that she had already received the money. The details as to when the money was paid by the said DW2 were also mentioned in the evidence of the said DW2. In the cross-examination, the said DW2 had stated that he had sold one buffalo to Chanan Singh, resident of Ropar for Rs.4200/-. Nothing material has been highlighted on behalf of the respondents from the cross-examination of the said witness to dislodge the abovesaid evidence given by them. From the above-said evidence, it is proved that the sale deed was duly executed and strong presumption in favour of the registered documents was not even remotely rebutted.
25. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Shanti Devi (supra) does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the case of Shanti Devi (supra) the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court had concurrently observed that the sale deed was never executed by the executants therein and the same was PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 found to be fraudulent. On the other hand, in the present case, it has been I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 18 found that the sale deed was duly executed and both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court had given a finding that there was no fraud or misrepresentation. The primary issue in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was on the aspect of limitation, which is not an issue in the present case. In the background of the sale deed having been found to be fraudulent, certain observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the payment of sale consideration, regarding which also, it was observed that the concurrent finding of the Courts indicated that the husband of the defendant therein, who was said to have given the sale consideration, had never stepped into the witness box and that one of the attesting witnesses therein was the brother of the defendant therein and there was no witness who had been produced to show that any payment was made. In the present case, as has been detailed herein before, the attesting witness who had been produced by the defendants i.e., DW3-Swaran Singh was not related to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 who had paid the consideration, had examined himself and other witnesses who had specifically stated that the consideration was paid.
26. It would be relevant to note that in the present Regular Second Appeal, vide order dated 25.11.1992, the matter was admitted and status quo regarding possession was ordered to be maintained during the pendency of the appeal. Thereafter vide order dated 18.01.1994, the execution of the impugned decree was stayed subject to the appellant furnishing security for mesne profits. The appellant has died and his LRs were brought on record vide order dated 28.05.2007 and the said LRs of the appellant are pursuing the present appeal. It would also be relevant to note that an application under PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was filed by the appellants on 01.05.2025 in which I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 19 notice was issued on the said date. Respondents No.2 and 3 have filed reply to the said application. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4 has submitted that although in the reply, it has been stated that the same has been filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3 but actually it has been filed on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4.
27. By virtue of application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, the present appellants have sought to produce on record registered Will dated 01.12.1992 which is stated to have executed by plaintiff-Ishri in favour of Darbara Singh-defendant No.1, in order to show the reason why Darbara Singh who had initially filed a written statement praying for dismissal of the suit had subsequently, although without filing amendment to the said written statement, changed his stand in favour of the plaintiff. It is submitted that since by virtue of the said Will, said Darbara Singh is getting the entire property, thus, in spite of being a beneficiary of the sale deed, he has chosen to change his stand and support the plaintiff. A perusal of the reply to the said application would show that the said Will has not been denied by the respondents. In fact, during the course of arguments, counsel for the respondents have argued that the said Will has been executed in favour of defendant No.1 in view of the fact that he had been serving/caring for the plaintiff. Counsel for defendant No.1/respondent No.2 has in fact relied upon the said Will. It was the case of the plaintiff that the mutation on the basis of the said Will was entered into by the revenue authorities on 09.08.2024, which fact has not been denied before this Court and it is for the said reason that the Will has been produced in the Regular Second Appeal. Moreover, it is stated that the Will is dated 01.12.1992 and is subsequent to the passing of PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 11.11.1992 and the present I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 20 appellant is neither a party nor a beneficiary to the said Will and thus, in spite of due diligence could not have produced the said Will before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court.
28. This Court is of the view that the fact that the Will dated 01.12.1992 has been executed by the plaintiff solely in favour of defendant No.1-Darbara Singh, which fact has not been disputed by the respondents rather has been relied upon on behalf of Darbara Singh-defendant No.1/respondent No.2, would help the Court in finally and properly adjudicating the case, more so, on the aspect that defendants No.1, 3 and 4, who had earlier filed a written statement calling for the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff had subsequently changed their stand. This Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the present appellants under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence meets the parameters of sub clause (aa) and (b) of Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and accordingly the application is allowed and the registered Will dated 01.12.1992 is permitted to be read in additional evidence. From the Will, the reason for defendant No.1, who was a beneficiary under the sale deed, to change his stand and support the case of the plaintiff becomes apparent.
29. The judgment of the First Appellate Court apart from being perverse and based on misreading of evidence, is also against the law laid down in the cases of Hemalatha (supra) and Jasvir Singh (supra).
30. It would be relevant to note that the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 of CPC and that in paragraph 27 of the judgment of the Constitutional Bench (Five Judges Bench) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.03.23 17:15 in the case of Pankajakshi (dead) through legal representatives and others I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh RSA No.2373 of 1992 (O&M) 21 Vs. Chandrika and others and other connected matters reported as (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 157, it was observed that since Section 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, has no application to Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, it would necessarily continue as a law in force. Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act provides that an appeal would lie to the High Court from every decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court on any of the grounds mentioned therein and one such ground, i.e., ground No.(a) is when the decision is contrary to law or to some custom or usage having the force of law. The findings of the First Appellate Court, as has been discussed hereinabove, have been found to be contrary to settled law and thus, deserve to be set aside.
31. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 11.11.1992 is set aside and the judgment of the trial Court dated 15.01.1990 is upheld and the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff is dismissed.
32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
March 19th, 2026 (VIKAS BAHL)
Puneet/naresh.k/davinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
PUNEET SACHDEVA
2026.03.23 17:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh