Ram Karan vs Raj Kumar and Others

Gurdev Singh, J.—The Plaintiff-Appellant - Ram Karan has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Sonepat vide which he dismissed his appeal filed against the judgment and decree 27.3.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sonepat, vide which he dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff for declaration to the effect that he was in joint possession of the land in dispute and that the sale deeds dated 13.11.1990 and 27.8.1993 executed by Rattan Singh and Raj Kumar - Defendant No. 1/Respondent No. 1 in favour of Hoshiar Singh and Balbir Singh - Defendants No. 2 and 3/Respondents No. 2 and 3 are null and void and have no effect on his 1/2 share in the land in dispute and also his suit for permanent injunction restraining, Defendants No. 2 and 3 from alienating any part of his share in the land in dispute.

The case of the Plaintiff, as pleaded in the plaint, is that he himself and Raj Kumar -Defendant No. 1 are the sons of Rattan Singh, who had one sister; named, Ram Piari. Rattan Singh and Ram Piari were the owners in equal shares in possession of the land in dispute, measuring 55 Kanals 8 Marias situated in the revenue estate of Village Barona, District Sonepat. Ram Piari transferred her 1/2 share in his favour and in favour of Defendant No. 1 by virtue of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 18 dated 4.4.1978 and the mutation was also sanctioned in their favour. Thus, they became the owner in possession of % share each, alongwith their father Rattan Singh. Rattan Singh sold land in excess of his share to Defendants No. 2 and 3, vide sale deeds dated 27.4.1976, 14.6.1976, 4.1.1978, 13.11.1990 and 27.8.1993 as detailed in the plaint itself. He sold specific Killa numbers without getting the land partitioned and without their consent. Those sale deeds have no affect on his right in the suit land to the extent of his share.

The suit was contested by Defendants Nos. 2 and 3. In their written statement, they denied the contentions of the Plaintiff and inter alia pleaded that in fact sale deeds dated 13.11.1990 and 27.8.1993 in their favour were executed not only by Rattan Singh, but were executed also by Ram Karan Singh, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. After the execution of those sale deeds, the Plaintiff and his father - Rattan Singh, were not left with any share in the land in dispute and as such, the Plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit. Moreover, they are bona fide purchasers for consideration. The decree dated 15.6.1978 was liable to be ignored, as the same was not according to the provisions of Registration Act, and as such is nonest in the eyes of law.

In replication to the written statement, the Plaintiff denied the objections raised therein and reiterated his averments made in the plaint.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:

Whether the sale-deed executed by Rattan Singh and Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal, null and void, not binding upon the rights of the Plaintiff on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?OPP

Whether Smt. Ram Pyari transferred her 1/2 share in the suit land in a civil suit No. 18 dated 4.4.78 in favour of Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and so, Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of 1/2 share each and father of the Plaintiff Rattan Singh sold agricultural land more than his share, if so to what effect?OPP

If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the Plaintiff, then whether Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, joint possession and injunction as prayed for?OPP

Whether suit of the Plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

Whether Plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit in view of preliminary objection No. 2 of the written statement filed by the Defendants? OPD.

Whether Plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD.

Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction and suit is liable to be dismissed?OPD.

Whether suit is liable to be rejected in view of provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C?OPD.

Whether suit is barred by limitation?OPD.

Whether Plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts from the Court, as alleged in para No. 8 of the preliminary objection? OPD.

Whether decree passed in civil suit No. 18 dated 4.4.1978 is liable to be ignored in view of Section 49 of Indian Registration Act? OPD.

Whether Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration, if so to what effect? OPD.

Whether impugned sale deeds dated 13.11.1990 and 27.8.1993 in favour of Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have been executed at the behest of Plaintiff who played active part in execution of the same, if so to what effect? OPD.

Relief.

To prove his case the Plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and also proved on record a number of documents. On the other hand the Defendants examined Hoshiar Singh (DW1), Vijender (DW2), Ram Bhagat (DW3), Shivjit (DW4) and Dharamraj (DW5).

After going through the evidence, so produced on the record, and hearing learned Counsel for the parties the findings were recorded on all the issues and the suit of the Plaintiff was dismissed. He preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, but the same was dismissed, as aforesaid.

In this case the question of limitation was also raised by the Defendants No. 2 and 3 and specific issue No. 9 was framed in this regard. That issue was decided against the Plaintiff and that finding was upheld by the first Appellate Court. Besides challenging the findings of the lower Courts on the other issues, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff challenged the finding of those Courts on that issue also. He has submitted that Plaintiff got the knowledge regarding the execution of the sale deeds, which have been challenged by him, after the revenue records were inspected by him on 15.12.2003 and, as such, the cause of action to file the suit arose to him on the said date. Thus, the finding recorded on the issue of limitation is liable to be reversed.

Concurrent findings have been recorded by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court that the knowledge of the sale deeds is to be imputed to the Plaintiff from the execution of those sale deeds as he was also party to those sale deeds and actively participated in the execution thereof. It cannot be said that there is any misreading of evidence by the lower Courts for recording their findings or that the same suffer from any perversity. The knowledge of the sale deeds from the dates of the execution thereof was rightly imputed to the Plaintiff as he was one of the vendors and had put his signatures thereon. He could have challenged those sale deeds within three years from the date of execution thereof. There is no ground for upsetting the well reasoned findings recorded by the lower Courts for deciding the issue of limitation. When the issue of limitation was decided against the Plaintiff, the suit was liable to be dismissed on that ground and the lower Courts were not required to record the findings on the other issues.

No substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.