Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarvesh Kumar vs Vijay Pal Singh Etc on 9 October, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
RSA No.2186 of 2012(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.2186 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 9.10.2012
Sarvesh Kumar
....Appellant
Versus
Vijay Pal Singh etc
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J C.M.No.6116-C of 2012 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 93 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No.2186 of 2012(O&M) Defendant No.3-appellant is in second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed and the findings affirmed in the appeal.
Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants- appellants from interfering in the ownership and possession over the plot measuring 1 kanal 2 marla shown in site plan situated within the abadi deh of Village Babyal, District Ambala. Upon notice, the suit RSA No.2186 of 2012(O&M) #2# was resisted by the defendant Nos.2 & 3. After hearing both the sides, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ambala City decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent vide its judgment and decree dated 25.1.2010. On an appeal having been filed by the defendant No.3-appellant, the same has been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala vide judgment & decree dated 6.9.2011, hence the present second appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that both the courts below have legally erred while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent as the sale consideration in the alleged sale deed dated 15.1.1966 is shown only of Rs.36/- and thus the same is unbelievable and the sale deed can be ignored on this ground. It is further argued that neither the Scribe of the sale deed nor its vendor have been examined.
After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.
A perusal of paper book reveals that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plot in dispute is situated within the abadi deh of a Village and its original owner Munni Lal son of Rulia Ram R/o Village Babyal had sold the same to one Sh. Sukhdev Singh son of Sh. Bishan Singh, resident of the same Village vide unregistered sale deed dated 15.1.1966 for a sale consideration of Rs.36/- and in pursuance of the same, the possession was also delivered and the same is proved from the statement of DW1-Kul Bhushan as well as DW2 Suresh Kumar.
RSA No.2186 of 2012(O&M) #3# Munni Lal is the father of the defendant-appellant whereas Sh. Sukhdev Singh is the grand father of the plaintiff-respondent Vijay Pal Singh. Therefore, the alleged sale deed was executed by the predecessor in interest of both the parties and that too for a sale consideration of less than Rs.100/- and as such the same did not require registration as per the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and moreover the property was situated within the abadi deh. After the death of Sukhdev Singh, the property devolved upon his legal heirs i.e Mohinder Singh, Inderpal Singh and Smt. Tara Rani and all three suffered a decree in a Civil Suit No.722 of 28.10.1991 decided on 11.12.1991 by the then Sub Judge, Ambala titled as Vijay Pal Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh and in that decree, other immovable property including the present one were the part of the proceedings.
Sale deed dated 15.1.1966 has been produced on record as Ex.D1 and site plan is Ex.P1. During the course of evidence, a suggestion was put to the plaintiff and he specifically denied that the grand father of defendant namely Munna Lal had never sold his property to the grand father of the plaintiff namely Sukhdev Singh. A plea was raised before the learned trial Court that name of grand-father of the defendant is Munna Lal and not Munni Lal as mentioned in the sale deed but the same has been duly considered and rejected by the learned trial Court by recording a finding that parentage of Munna Lal is Rulia Ram and it is only a clerical error that Munna Lal was RSA No.2186 of 2012(O&M) #4# mentioned as Munni Lal.
There was no other specific plea raised by the defendant- appellant to declare the sale deed as invalid. Moreover, the sale deed is more than 30 years old document, being executed in the year 1966 which is per se admissible in evidence and as such the same can not be discarded only on the ground that its Scribe and Vendor have not been examined.
In view of the above, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal.
Dismissed.
October 09,2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE