Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: document lost in Bharat Singh vs Karnail Singh 1/27 on 6 June, 2020Matching Fragments
2. The defendants contested claims of the plaintiff and filed written statement. The defendants in brief summary stated that property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards was purchased by the defendant no 2 in March, 2000 and since then the defendant no 2 is in peaceful possession of the property in issue. The defendant no 2 has lost documents pertaining to the property in issue in April, 2012 and the plaintiff taking advantage of the loss of documents pertaining to the property in issue filed the present suit with mala fide intention to grab the property of the defendant no 2. The defendants in the preliminary objections stated that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as based on forged and fabricated documents. The plaintiff does not have locus standi to file the present suit as the plaintiff does not have valid title documents in his favour. The suit is liable to be rejected u/o VII Rule 11 CPC. The plaintiff could not get any relief from various courts.
13. Self-acquired property is purchased by an individual from his resources or any property acquired as a part of division of any ancestral property or acquired as a legal heir or by any testamentary document such as Will. Property being immoveable is a unique asset and its ownership is broadly determined by title documents. Property ownership is primarily established through a registered sale deed which is a record of the property transaction between the buyer CS 476517/15 BHARAT SINGH VS. KARNAIL SINGH 10/27 and seller. Other documents such as property tax receipts and survey documents may be used to establish ownership but these documents are not guaranteed title to the property and are only a record of the transfer of property. Property ownership is presumptive in nature and subject to challenge. The defendants as opposite to claims of the plaintiff alleged that the defendant no 2 purchased property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards in Khasra no 156 from Tara Singh in March, 2000 for a sale consideration of Rs.54,000/-. Tara Chand purchased property in issue from Man Singh and Khem Chand and the revenue records are still in their names. The defendant no 2 lost title documents in April, 2012 and the plaintiff filed the present suit after April, 2012 when he came to know about loss of documents. The suit property measuring 60 sq. yards as shown in red colour in site plan Ex.PW1/1 is part of property in issue. The defendants as such claimed that that the property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards in Khasra no 156 is self-acquired property of the defendant no 2. The counsel for the defendants argued that entire land measuring 6 bigha and 9 biswa falling in Khasra no 156 was transferred by Ram Ricker to his Girdhari who subsequently sold entire land falling in Khasra no 156 to Man Singh and brothers and their names was mutated in revenue record as reflected from Ex. DW1/2. The counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendants made publication Ex. PW1/F in newspaper only after receipt of summons from court of Ms. Suchi Laler, Civil Judge.
14. The onus to prove was on the defendants to prove that property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards in Khasra no 156 is self-acquired by the defendant no 2 and as such the defendant no 2 is owner of property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards in Khasra no 156. The defendants to prove their case examined them and tendered affidavits Ex. DW1/A and DW2/A in evidence wherein deposed above mentioned facts. The defendant no 1 as DW1 in cross examination deposed that the defendants have constructed 120 sq. yards and the remaining portion measuring about 60 sq. yards was lying vacant. The defendant no 2 in cross examination deposed that Arjun Singh was not having any property in Khasra no 156. The defendant no 2 as DW2 denied the suggestion that she deliberately not disclosing the true facts regarding the property of Arjun Singh in Khasra no 156 or that she never purchased the property in issue from Tara Singh or that she did not pay Rs.54,000/- as sale consideration or that title documents were never lost. The plaintiff as PW1 in cross examination denied suggestions that that the title documents in favour of the defendant no. 2 in respect of property in issue were lost in 2012 or that the plaintiff tried to get benefit from loss of title documents in favour of the defendant no. 2 in respect of property in issue or that the CS 476517/15 BHARAT SINGH VS. KARNAIL SINGH 11/27 plaintiff tried to take forcible possession from the defendant no 2 or that property in issue in Khasra No. 156 was purchased by the defendant no. 2.
15. The defendants alleged that the defendant no 2 lost title documents in respect of property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards and to prove that the defendant no 2 lost title documents in April, 2012 proved copy of First Information Report under section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as Ex.DW1/8 which was lodged on 28.05.2013 i.e. after one year of alleged loss of title documents in respect of property in issue measuring 180 sq. yards in Khasra no 156. The counsel for the defendants relied on Basant Singh & others V Brij Raj Saran Singh & others, AIR1935PC132 wherein it was observed that if originals are not seen for many years then it is sufficient evidence for loss.