Jaswant Singh vs Bahadur Singh

Sat Pal, J.—By this judgment, I am disposing of two petitions, bearing C.R. No. 4384 and C.R. No. 4385 of 1997 as the point raised in both the petitions is similar. For the purpose of this judgment, the facts of C.R. No. 4384 of 1997 have been taken.

The petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the respondents/defendants for restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land and further restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land. According to the case of the plaintiffs the defendant No. 2 Bahadur Singh was the owner in possession of the suit land being successor in interest of Kheera Singh who expired in the year 1974, and he had duly appointed Satnam Singh s/o Gurdial Singh as General Power of Attorney vide deed dated 27th February, 1963 which was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Jullundur. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Bahadur Singh through his said General Power of Attorney sold the suit land to the plaintiffs vide registered sale deed dated 9th June, 1989 for a consideration Rs. 1,37,500/- and the said sale deed was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Guhla.

The respondent/defendant Surinder Singh, on 29-10-1986, filed the suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the suit land on account of family settlement. The said suit was decreed in favour of Surinder Singh on 6.11.1986.

On 1.6.1987, respondent/defendant Bahadur Singh through Jagdish Singh as General Power of Attorney holder filed suit No. 488 of 1997 against Surinder Singh for a declaration to the effect that the decree dated 6.11.1986, mentioned herein above, was obtained by Surinder Singh by fraud. The aforesaid suit was decreed on 1st May, 1989 by the learned Sub Judge, Kaithal and it was held that the decree dated 6.11.1986 obtained by the defendant/respondent Surinder Singh was fraudulent void ab-initio, null and void and was not binding on the rights of plaintiff Bahadur Singh, and accordingly, the said decree was set aside. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, dated 1st May, 1989, Surinder Singh filed the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra. During the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, respondent Surinder Singh and respondent Bahadur Singh arrived at a compromise in terms of which Bahadur Singh received a sum of Rs. 38,000/- from Surinder Singh and Suit No. 488 of 1987 filed by Bahadur Singh stood dismissed.

Mr. Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that vide judgment dated 1st May, 1989, Sub Judge, Kaithal, had held that the decree dated 6.11.1986, obtained by respondent Surinder Singh was fraudulently void ab initio, and it was after the said decision dated 1st May, 1989 that the plaintiffs purchased the suit land from Bahadur Singh through his duly appointed power of attorney namely Satnam Singh vide registered deed dated 9.6.1989 for consideration of Rs. 1,37,500/- and registered deed dated 1.12.1989 for a consideration of Rs. 1,92,500/-. He submitted that having sold the suit land to the plaintiffs, the alienation of the suit land by Bahadur Singh in favour of Surinder Singh in terms of the compromise arrived at in the Court of Sh. D.D. Yadav Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra was mala fide. He, therefore, contended that the interim injunction granted by the learned trial court was legal and justified and the learned Additional District Judge erred in setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Thakur v. Jagat Singh (1985) 88 P.L.R. 493.

Mr. Nagpal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that the plaintiff had purchased the suit land from Bahadur Singh during the pendency of the suit. He further submitted that from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, it is evident that the said order is based on revenue records available before the Court and as such the or4ers passed by the learned Additional District Judge was sustainable.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. From the records, it is clear that the plaintiffs had purchased the suit land during the pendency of the appeal filed by Surinder Singh against the judgment dated 1st May, 1989. The question whether the sale of the suit land to the plaintiffs was hit by the doctrine of Us pen-dens u/s 52, Transfer of Property Act, is yet to be gone into by the trial court during the trial of the case. Further from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, I find that while passing the impugned order, the learned lower appellate court has taken into consideration Jamabandi for the year 1984-85 and Khasra Girdawri from Kharif 1986 upto Rabi 1995. From these facts, it cannot be said that the impugned order is perverse.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find my infirmity or illegality in the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Accordingly, both the petitions being without any merit, are dismissed. Any observation given herein above, however, shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case.