Amarjit Kaur And Others v. Baljinder Singh And Others
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Sr. No.111 Case No. : RSA No.1770 of 2019 Date of Decision : July 17, 2023 Amarjit Kaur and others ....
Appellants vs.
Baljinder Singh and others ....
Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * * Present :
Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants.
* * * GURBIR SINGH , J.
:
1.
The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby judgment and decree dated 01.07.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar has been affirmed and appeal has been dismissed.
2.
The appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as - the plaintiffs) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of 1/4th share out of the land measuring 19 kanals 11 marlas and also for declaration that the mutation no. 8216 qua 40/231 share out of the suit land, got sanctioned by respondents no.1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as - the defendants no.1 to 3) in connivance with revenue staff, is illegal and is liable to be set aside as the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had never sold the said land and sale deed dated 29.04.2005 executed by the defendants in null and void.
-23.
The case of the plaintiffs is that Manjinder Singh sold the land measuring 02 kanals bearing khasra no.53/18/1 in Village Pandori Waraich, Tehsil and District Amritsar to defendants no.1 and 2 vide registered sale deed dated 29.04.2005 for consideration of Rs.2 lakhs. He was left with no interest in the said land. He died on 26.12.2012 leaving behind plaintiffs no.1 to 5 as his legal heirs. Thereafter, after approaching the Patwari, the plaintiffs (legal heirs) came to know that instead of getting the mutation sanctioned in respect of the land sold by Manjinder Singh to defendants no.1 and 2, the defendants have got mutation no.8216 sanctioned in respect of khasra no.18/12/2(3-11), 19/1(5-16), 19/2(2-4) and 20(8-0). The said land was never sold by Manjinder Singh. The aforesaid khasra numbers were entered subsequently by the defendants in their own hand, in connivance with the officials of Sub-Registrar. The plaintiffs also proved the said fact by producing the deed writer as a prosecution witness. 4.
I have heard submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.
5.
The sale deed dated 29.04.2005 was admittedly executed by Manjinder Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. Manjinder Singh did not challenge the same during his life time. The said sale deed has been challenged after eight years of execution. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the property in dispute. The best evidence for the plaintiffs was to prove the record of the Sub-Registrar. If any change was made after registration, then there would not have been any such change in the said record. A party is required to produce the best evidence and plaintiff is required to stand on his own legs. Both the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of
-3fact that addition in the sale deed regarding other khasra numbers was made with mutual consent of the parties at the time of execution of sale deed. 6.
In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. The concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 7.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this judgment.
July 17, 2023 (GURBIR SINGH) monika JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No.