Swaran Rani and Others vs Bhan Singh and Others

Jaswant Singh, J.—LRs of plaintiff-Kuldip Lal (since deceased) have filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Ludhiana dismissing their suit, has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-Kuldip Lal filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the sale deeds as described in the head note of the plaint executed by defendant-respondent No. 5 in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 11 & 12 are illegal, null and void; further prayer was for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 2 to 7 from alienating the suit property in any manner. Upon notice,the suit was contested by defendant Nos. 2 to 7. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. On an appeal having been filed by the LRs of the plaintiff-Kuldip Lal, the same has also been dismissed, hence the present second appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that both the courts below have grossly erred while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff as the sale deed purported to have been executed by the plaintiff along with defendant Nos. 8 & 9 in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1 were never executed and the same are illegal, null and void and of no consequence.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal.

Undisputedly, the sale deed in question is dated 9.7.1990 and is registered document (Ex.P.1), which is shown to have been executed by the plaintiff along with defendant Nos. 8 & 9 but the present suit was filed on 20.8.1998 i.e after a period of more than eight years. The limitation for seeking declaration for setting aside the sale deed is three years and there is no plausible explanation for the same. There is sufficient material available on record that sale deed (Ex.P.1) was in the knowledge of plaintiff from the year 1990 and was acted upon as per law by sanctioning the mutation entries in the revenue record as well as possession. Plaintiff-Kuldip Lal while appearing as PW3 has admitted in his cross examination that he received the copy of sale deed (Ex.P.1) in the year 1990 itself and thus both the courts have rightly non-suited the plaintiff-appellant on the ground of limitation and in this regard, para 26 of the judgment of learned Appellate Court being relevant is reproduced below:

At three different places, during cross examination, PW3 stated that respondents entered into possession of the suit property in the year 1990, about which he gained knowledge in the same year through Dr. Gurcharan. He further stated that he even disclosed this fact to his counsel at the time of filing of the suit.

The allegation that the sale deed (Ex.P.1) was not executed by the plaintiff and his brother, is not sustainable in view of the fact that none of the attesting witness to the sale deed has been examined to discharge the onus for the reasons best known to the plaintiff.

In the present case, the contesting defendants claimed to have purchased the suit property after verifying and satisfying themselves about the ownership of defendant No. 1 on the strength of the registered sale deed (Ex.P.1) and subsequent revenue entries. Even DW2 has supported that oral inquiries were also made regarding the ownership of the suit land and thus in view of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, defendant Nos. 2 to 7 were bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration and no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below.

No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Dismissed.