RSA No. 2179 of 1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurdeep Singh Sansar Singh & Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:-Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate DEEPAK GUPTA, J. consequential relief of permanent injunction, and in the alternative for joint possession of disputed property, filed by plaintiff Sansar Singh (respondent herein) Divn.), Balachaur on 12.08.2021; and the appeal filed by defendant Gurdeep Singh Court on 15.01.2024, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. It is against these conc of the case has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal. 2. their status before the trial Court. 3. defendants, namely Gurdeep Singh & Santokh Singh, being the sons of his deceased brother Kashmir Singh. Plaintiff Sansar Singh is unmarried and issue-less. Dispute is regarding shown in red colour in the attached site plan, bearing Khata no. 202/279, Khasra No.1022 (01 District SBS Nagar, detailed and described in head note of the plaint, as per Jamabandi for the year 200 RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 1 of 7 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Gurdeep Singh Versus Sansar Singh & Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Ms. Sarika Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for declaration regarding property in dispute along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, and in the alternative for joint possession of disputed property, filed by plaintiff Sansar Singh (respondent herein), was decreed by the learned Ad Divn.), Balachaur on 12.08.2021; and the appeal filed by defendant Gurdeep Singh (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 15.01.2024, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. It is against these concurrent findings of the Courts below that defendant No.1 of the case has approached this Court by way of present regular second In order to avoid confusion, part their status before the trial Court. Plaintiff Sansar Singh is the real paternal uncle of the two defendants, namely Gurdeep Singh & Santokh Singh, being the sons of his deceased brother Kashmir Singh. Plaintiff Sansar Singh is unmarried and less. Dispute is regarding abadi property marked by letter shown in red colour in the attached site plan, bearing Khata no. 202/279, Khasra No.1022 (01-17) situated in village Sahungra, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, detailed and described in head note of the plaint, as per Jamabandi for the year 2006-07. As per plaintiff, in order to help his of 7 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1999 of 2024 (O&M) Reserved on: 27.08.2025 Pronounced on: 03.09.2025 …Appellant …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Suit for declaration regarding property in dispute along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, and in the alternative for joint possession of disputed property, filed by plaintiff Sansar Singh , was decreed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur on 12.08.2021; and the appeal filed by defendant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 15.01.2024, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. It is urrent findings of the Courts below that defendant No.1 of the case has approached this Court by way of present regular second In order to avoid confusion, parties shall be referred as per sar Singh is the real paternal uncle of the two defendants, namely Gurdeep Singh & Santokh Singh, being the sons of his deceased brother Kashmir Singh. Plaintiff Sansar Singh is unmarried and property marked by letters ABCD shown in red colour in the attached site plan, bearing Khata no. 202/279, 17) situated in village Sahungra, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, detailed and described in head note of the plaint, as per 07. As per plaintiff, in order to help his RSA No. 1999 of 2024 (O&M) .08.2025 : 03.09.2025 Appellant Respondents Suit for declaration regarding property in dispute along with consequential relief of permanent injunction, and in the alternative for joint possession of disputed property, filed by plaintiff Sansar Singh ditional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur on 12.08.2021; and the appeal filed by defendant was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 15.01.2024, thus affirming the findings of the trial Court. It is urrent findings of the Courts below that defendant No.1 of the case has approached this Court by way of present regular second shall be referred as per sar Singh is the real paternal uncle of the two defendants, namely Gurdeep Singh & Santokh Singh, being the sons of his deceased brother Kashmir Singh. Plaintiff Sansar Singh is unmarried and s ABCD shown in red colour in the attached site plan, bearing Khata no. 202/279, 17) situated in village Sahungra, Tehsil Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, detailed and described in head note of the plaint, as per 07. As per plaintiff, in order to help his JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 brother Kashmir Singh and his family, he had purchased the suit property vide sale-deed dated 21.01.1982 from his own funds in the name of defendants to the extent of 2/3 share, and in his own name to the extent 1/3 share. Now, dispute is regarding 1/3 share, which existed in the name of plaintiff Sansar Singh. 4. construction of the house in the suit property except room mark N. About 5-6 years ago, defendants having not sufficient accommodation to live, were allowed to reside in the suit property. Rela were cordial and on the allurement of the defendants, plaintiff had even executed a registered Chuck Gujjran in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, defendants started alluring the plaintiff to execute the Will regarding his 1/3 share in the suit property. Plaintiff was having blind faith in the defendants, fell to their prey and agreed to execute the Will. Plaintiff was brought to the Tehsil Complex, Balachaur by the defendants a and finger impressions were obtained on many papers and registers by disclosing the said document to be Will of his share in the suit property. The contents of the document were never read over to the plaintiff and believing the representation made by the defendants to be true, he thumb marked over the same. However, about three months ago, defendants asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit property by telling that they had got executed the transfer deed in their name right or title in the same. Threat of the defendants caused a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff. He immediately got cancelled his Will dated 07.03.1989 executed in favour of the cancellation deed dated 23.11.2012. However, on getting copy of Jamabandi for the year 2001 know that defendants had got his 1/3 transferred in their names fraudulently and il sanctioned mutation No. 3011. After getting copy of the transfer deed from the office of Sub Registrar Balachaur, he came to know about the fraud RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 2 of 7 Pages brother Kashmir Singh and his family, he had purchased the suit property deed dated 21.01.1982 from his own funds in the name of defendants to the extent of 2/3 share, and in his own name to the extent Now, dispute is regarding 1/3 share, which existed in the name of plaintiff Sansar Singh. Plaintiff claims that after purchasing the land, he had raised construction of the house in the suit property except room mark N. About 6 years ago, defendants having not sufficient accommodation to live, were allowed to reside in the suit property. Rela were cordial and on the allurement of the defendants, plaintiff had even registered Will on 07.03.1989 of his land situated at village Chuck Gujjran in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, defendants started he plaintiff to execute the Will regarding his 1/3 share in the suit property. Plaintiff was having blind faith in the defendants, fell to their prey and agreed to execute the Will. Plaintiff was brought to the Tehsil Complex, Balachaur by the defendants about 7 years ago, where his thumb marks and finger impressions were obtained on many papers and registers by disclosing the said document to be Will of his share in the suit property. The contents of the document were never read over to the plaintiff and elieving the representation made by the defendants to be true, he thumb marked over the same. However, about three months ago, defendants asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit property by telling that they had got executed the transfer deed in their name and that plaintiff was left with no right or title in the same. Threat of the defendants caused a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff. He immediately got cancelled his Will dated 07.03.1989 executed in favour of the defendants regarding his agricultural cancellation deed dated 23.11.2012. However, on getting copy of Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 from Patwari on 11.02.2013, he came to know that defendants had got his 1/3rd transferred in their names fraudulently and il sanctioned mutation No. 3011. After getting copy of the transfer deed from the office of Sub Registrar Balachaur, he came to know about the fraud of 7 Pages brother Kashmir Singh and his family, he had purchased the suit property deed dated 21.01.1982 from his own funds in the name of defendants to the extent of 2/3 share, and in his own name to the extent of Now, dispute is regarding 1/3 share, which existed in the name Plaintiff claims that after purchasing the land, he had raised construction of the house in the suit property except room mark N. About 6 years ago, defendants having not sufficient accommodation to live, were allowed to reside in the suit property. Relations between the parties were cordial and on the allurement of the defendants, plaintiff had even Will on 07.03.1989 of his land situated at village Chuck Gujjran in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, defendants started he plaintiff to execute the Will regarding his 1/3 share in the suit property. Plaintiff was having blind faith in the defendants, fell to their prey and agreed to execute the Will. Plaintiff was brought to the Tehsil Complex, bout 7 years ago, where his thumb marks and finger impressions were obtained on many papers and registers by disclosing the said document to be Will of his share in the suit property. The contents of the document were never read over to the plaintiff and elieving the representation made by the defendants to be true, he thumb marked over the same. However, about three months ago, defendants asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit property by telling that they had got and that plaintiff was left with no right or title in the same. Threat of the defendants caused a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff. He immediately got cancelled his Will dated 07.03.1989 regarding his agricultural land vide cancellation deed dated 23.11.2012. However, on getting copy of 02 from Patwari on 11.02.2013, he came to rd share in the suit property transferred in their names fraudulently and illegally and had also got sanctioned mutation No. 3011. After getting copy of the transfer deed from the office of Sub Registrar Balachaur, he came to know about the fraud brother Kashmir Singh and his family, he had purchased the suit property deed dated 21.01.1982 from his own funds in the name of of Now, dispute is regarding 1/3 share, which existed in the name Plaintiff claims that after purchasing the land, he had raised construction of the house in the suit property except room mark N. About 6 years ago, defendants having not sufficient accommodation to live, tions between the parties were cordial and on the allurement of the defendants, plaintiff had even Will on 07.03.1989 of his land situated at village Chuck Gujjran in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, defendants started he plaintiff to execute the Will regarding his 1/3 share in the suit property. Plaintiff was having blind faith in the defendants, fell to their prey and agreed to execute the Will. Plaintiff was brought to the Tehsil Complex, bout 7 years ago, where his thumb marks and finger impressions were obtained on many papers and registers by disclosing the said document to be Will of his share in the suit property. The contents of the document were never read over to the plaintiff and elieving the representation made by the defendants to be true, he thumb marked over the same. However, about three months ago, defendants asked the plaintiff to vacate the suit property by telling that they had got and that plaintiff was left with no right or title in the same. Threat of the defendants caused a cloud upon the title of the plaintiff. He immediately got cancelled his Will dated 07.03.1989 land vide cancellation deed dated 23.11.2012. However, on getting copy of 02 from Patwari on 11.02.2013, he came to share in the suit property legally and had also got sanctioned mutation No. 3011. After getting copy of the transfer deed from the office of Sub Registrar Balachaur, he came to know about the fraud JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 committed upon him by the defendants, which revealed that defendants in connivance wi executed by showing the consideration of property. Defendants were asked many times to admit the claim of the plaintiff, but they did not pay any heed, which necessitated h suit. 5. proceeded ex 6. suit and in his written statement contended that plaintiff himself had got executed the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 in favour of the defendants and that thereafter they had raised construction of house by spending lakhs of rupees from their own plaintiff to execute the Will in his favou own had executed the transfer deed in their name. With these submissions, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. 7. parties was taken on record. The trial Court on 12.08.2021 by holding the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 to be the result of fraud played by the defendants upon the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses and further declared the said transfer deed to be wrong, illegal and void and not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff was declared to be co joint possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3 share. Defendants were further restrained from dis property by denying his right or title in the same. The findings returned by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 15.01.2024. 8.1 learned counsel for the appellant deed dated 06.01.2006 is a registered document and that its execution by plaintiff Sansar Singh has been duly proved by the testimony of scribe i.e. RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 3 of 7 Pages committed upon him by the defendants, which revealed that defendants in connivance with the scribe and witnesses had got the transfer deed executed by showing the consideration of property. Defendants were asked many times to admit the claim of the plaintiff, but they did not pay any heed, which necessitated h Defendant No.2 Santokh Singh did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex-parte. It is only defendant No.1 Gurdeep Singh, who contested the suit and in his written statement contended that plaintiff himself had got the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 in favour of the defendants and that thereafter they had raised construction of house by spending lakhs of rupees from their own resources. He further denied to have allured the plaintiff to execute the Will in his favour and claimed that plaintiff at his own had executed the transfer deed in their name. With these submissions, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the parties was taken on record. The trial Court on 12.08.2021 by holding the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 to be the result of fraud played by the defendants upon the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses and further declared the said transfer to be wrong, illegal and void and not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff was declared to be co joint possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3 share. Defendants were further restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff out of the suit property by denying his right or title in the same. The findings returned by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 15.01.2024. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is argued learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 that impugned transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 is a registered document and that its execution by plaintiff Sansar Singh has been duly proved by the testimony of scribe i.e. of 7 Pages committed upon him by the defendants, which revealed that defendants in th the scribe and witnesses had got the transfer deed executed by showing the consideration of ₹ 42,000/- regarding the suit property. Defendants were asked many times to admit the claim of the plaintiff, but they did not pay any heed, which necessitated him to file the Defendant No.2 Santokh Singh did not contest the suit and was It is only defendant No.1 Gurdeep Singh, who contested the suit and in his written statement contended that plaintiff himself had got the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 in favour of the defendants and that thereafter they had raised construction of house by spending lakhs sources. He further denied to have allured the r and claimed that plaintiff at his own had executed the transfer deed in their name. With these submissions, Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 12.08.2021 by holding the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 to be the result of fraud played by the defendants upon the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses and further declared the said transfer to be wrong, illegal and void and not binding qua the rights of the plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff was declared to be co-sharer in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3 share. Defendants possessing the plaintiff out of the suit property by denying his right or title in the same. The findings returned by the trial Court were affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 15.01.2024. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is argued by defendant No.1 that impugned transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 is a registered document and that its execution by plaintiff Sansar Singh has been duly proved by the testimony of scribe i.e. committed upon him by the defendants, which revealed that defendants in th the scribe and witnesses had got the transfer deed regarding the suit property. Defendants were asked many times to admit the claim of the im to file the Defendant No.2 Santokh Singh did not contest the suit and was It is only defendant No.1 Gurdeep Singh, who contested the suit and in his written statement contended that plaintiff himself had got the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 in favour of the defendants and that thereafter they had raised construction of house by spending lakhs sources. He further denied to have allured the r and claimed that plaintiff at his own had executed the transfer deed in their name. With these submissions, Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 12.08.2021 by holding the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 to be the result of fraud played by the defendants upon the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe and the witnesses and further declared the said transfer to be wrong, illegal and void and not binding qua the rights of the sharer in joint possession of the suit property to the extent of 1/3 share. Defendants possessing the plaintiff out of the suit property by denying his right or title in the same. The findings returned by by defendant No.1 that impugned transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 is a registered document and that its execution by plaintiff Sansar Singh has been duly proved by the testimony of scribe i.e. JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 DW-1 Swaran Singh. Learned couns requirement to examine any of the attesting witnesses because the executant i.e. plaintiff had admitted the execution thereof. It is argued that transfer deed was executed by plaintiff at his own volition and free will it was not the result of any allurement or misrepresentation as contended by him and that the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff in this regard was absolutely not reliable but Courts below fell in error in believing that evidence. 8.2 defendant No.1 that a simplicitor suit for declaration is not maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon (Civil) 855. 8.3 impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. 9. the appellant and has appraised the paper book carefully. 10. registered document and has been assailed by the executant thereof to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation. How the said document is required to be proved is provided under Section 68 of the which reads as under: “68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Co proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration A RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 4 of 7 Pages 1 Swaran Singh. Learned counsel contends further that there was no requirement to examine any of the attesting witnesses because the executant i.e. plaintiff had admitted the execution thereof. It is argued that transfer deed was executed by plaintiff at his own volition and free will it was not the result of any allurement or misrepresentation as contended by him and that the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff in this regard was absolutely not reliable but Courts below fell in error in believing that Still further it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant defendant No.1 that a simplicitor suit for declaration is not maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh, 2011 AIR SC With these submissions, prayer is made impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the suit of respondent. This court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has appraised the paper book carefully. Transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 assailed by the plaintiff, is a registered document and has been assailed by the executant thereof to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation. How the said document is required to be proved is provided under Section 68 of the which reads as under:- 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration A of 7 Pages el contends further that there was no requirement to examine any of the attesting witnesses because the executant i.e. plaintiff had admitted the execution thereof. It is argued that transfer deed was executed by plaintiff at his own volition and free will and it was not the result of any allurement or misrepresentation as contended by him and that the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff in this regard was absolutely not reliable but Courts below fell in error in believing that her it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant No.1 that a simplicitor suit for declaration is not maintainable. Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh, 2011 AIR SC With these submissions, prayer is made for setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the suit of This court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has appraised the paper book carefully. fer deed dated 06.01.2006 assailed by the plaintiff, is a registered document and has been assailed by the executant thereof to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation. How the said document is required to be proved is provided under Section 68 of the Evidence Act 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.––If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to urt and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, el contends further that there was no requirement to examine any of the attesting witnesses because the executant i.e. plaintiff had admitted the execution thereof. It is argued that and it was not the result of any allurement or misrepresentation as contended by him and that the oral evidence produced by the plaintiff in this regard was absolutely not reliable but Courts below fell in error in believing that - defendant No.1 that a simplicitor suit for declaration is not maintainable. Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh, 2011 AIR SC for setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and to dismiss the suit of This court has considered submissions of learned counsel for fer deed dated 06.01.2006 assailed by the plaintiff, is a registered document and has been assailed by the executant thereof to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation. How the said document is Evidence Act If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been ct, JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” 11. of Will, it is necessary to call at least an attesting witnes execution thereof. However, in case a document is not a Will and the same has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, then it is not necessary to call any attesting witness in proof of its execution, unl person to whom it purports to have been executed. 12. executant of the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 and as he specifically denied the executio and misrepresentation, so, it was incumbent on the defendant i.e. transferee of the property in dispute to call at least an attesting witness to prove the execution thereof. 13. namely Jaspal Singh Nambardar, and Mohinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, to the document, none of them have been examined by the defendant to support his case. It is not the case of the defendant that these attesting witnesses had expired. Defendant only examined scribe to the document namely DW1 Swaran Singh but even his testimony is not of no use to support the case of the witness only stated after going through th deed that it was scribed by him. Nowhere he stated that he had read over the contents of the said document to the executant Sansar Singh and thereafter the plaintiff had executed the same in the presence of the witnesses. 14. by the testimony of PW2 Santokh Singh. This witness is none else than defendant No.2 i.e. own brother of appellant Singh. Though said defendant was proceeded ex RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 5 of 7 Pages 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that in a case of Will, it is necessary to call at least an attesting witnes execution thereof. However, in case a document is not a Will and the same has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, then it is not necessary to call any attesting witness in proof of its execution, unless its execution is specifically denied by the person to whom it purports to have been executed. In the present case, it is the plaintiff Sansar Singh, who is executant of the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 and as he specifically denied the execution thereof and alleged the same to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation, so, it was incumbent on the defendant i.e. transferee of the property in dispute to call at least an attesting witness to prove the execution thereof. However, despite there being two attesting marginal witnesses namely Jaspal Singh Nambardar, and Mohinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, to the document, none of them have been examined by the defendant to support his case. It is not the case of the defendant that these attesting witnesses had expired. Defendant only examined scribe to the document namely DW1 Swaran Singh but even his testimony is not of no use to support the case of the defendant because in his examination witness only stated after going through the certified copy of the transfer deed that it was scribed by him. Nowhere he stated that he had read over the contents of the said document to the executant Sansar Singh and thereafter the plaintiff had executed the same in the presence of the Not only above, appellant-defendant's stand is further falsified by the testimony of PW2 Santokh Singh. This witness is none else than defendant No.2 i.e. own brother of appellant Singh. Though said defendant was proceeded ex of 7 Pages 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” A perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that in a case of Will, it is necessary to call at least an attesting witness to prove execution thereof. However, in case a document is not a Will and the same has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, then it is not necessary to call any attesting witness in ess its execution is specifically denied by the person to whom it purports to have been executed. In the present case, it is the plaintiff Sansar Singh, who is executant of the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 and as he specifically n thereof and alleged the same to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation, so, it was incumbent on the defendant i.e. transferee of the property in dispute to call at least an attesting witness to re being two attesting marginal witnesses namely Jaspal Singh Nambardar, and Mohinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, to the document, none of them have been examined by the defendant to support his case. It is not the case of the defendant that these attesting witnesses had expired. Defendant only examined scribe to the document namely DW1 Swaran Singh but even his testimony is not of no use to because in his examination-in-chief, said e certified copy of the transfer deed that it was scribed by him. Nowhere he stated that he had read over the contents of the said document to the executant Sansar Singh and thereafter the plaintiff had executed the same in the presence of the defendant's stand is further falsified by the testimony of PW2 Santokh Singh. This witness is none else than defendant No.2 i.e. own brother of appellant-defendant No.1 Gurdeep Singh. Though said defendant was proceeded ex-parte, but he entered the 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports A perusal of the aforesaid provision would reveal that in a case s to prove execution thereof. However, in case a document is not a Will and the same has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, then it is not necessary to call any attesting witness in ess its execution is specifically denied by the In the present case, it is the plaintiff Sansar Singh, who is executant of the transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 and as he specifically n thereof and alleged the same to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation, so, it was incumbent on the defendant i.e. transferee of the property in dispute to call at least an attesting witness to re being two attesting marginal witnesses namely Jaspal Singh Nambardar, and Mohinder Singh son of Kartar Singh, to the document, none of them have been examined by the defendant to support his case. It is not the case of the defendant that these attesting witnesses had expired. Defendant only examined scribe to the document namely DW1 Swaran Singh but even his testimony is not of no use to chief, said e certified copy of the transfer deed that it was scribed by him. Nowhere he stated that he had read over the contents of the said document to the executant Sansar Singh and thereafter the plaintiff had executed the same in the presence of the defendant's stand is further falsified by the testimony of PW2 Santokh Singh. This witness is none else than defendant No.1 Gurdeep te, but he entered the JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 witness box in support of the plaintiff's case and testified that plaintiff Sansar Singh had not transferred his share in the suit property in the name of defendants i.e. Santokh Singh and his brother Gurdeep Singh. 15. Singh did not enter the witness box himself. Rather, he examined his wife Smt. Avtar Kaur as his attorney as DW2. The testimony of this witness would reveal that she had absolutely no knowledge regarding the execu of the document in question and most of her replies indicate this. During her cross-examination, she categorically stated that on 06.01.2006, Sansar Singh had handed over the original document (brought by her)to her saying that he had executed a Will statement made by DW2, the attorney/ wife of defendant clinches the matter and prove that plaintiff Sansar Singh was made to understand on 06.01.2006 that he had executed the Will of his share in the suit property in favour of his nephews and not the transfer deed. 16. Courts below did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that impugned transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 was the result of fr misrepresentation and that the said document was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 17. that the suit of the plaintiff simplicitor for declaration is not maintainable is concerned, it has no merit. It is no doubt true that a simple suit for declaration is not maintainable. However, in the present case, plaintiff not only sought the decree of declaration as to declare the impugned transfer deed to be wrong, illegal, void and ine of fraud played upon him, he also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the suit property. Not only this, plaintiff furth prayed in the alternative to decree the suit for joint possession of the suit property. RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 6 of 7 Pages witness box in support of the plaintiff's case and testified that plaintiff Sansar Singh had not transferred his share in the suit property in the name of defendants i.e. Santokh Singh and his brother Gurdeep Singh. Matter does not stop here. Defendant Singh did not enter the witness box himself. Rather, he examined his wife Smt. Avtar Kaur as his attorney as DW2. The testimony of this witness would reveal that she had absolutely no knowledge regarding the execu of the document in question and most of her replies indicate this. During examination, she categorically stated that on 06.01.2006, Sansar Singh had handed over the original document (brought by her)to her saying that he had executed a Will in favour of her husband etc. The said statement made by DW2, the attorney/ wife of defendant clinches the matter and prove that plaintiff Sansar Singh was made to understand on 06.01.2006 that he had executed the Will of his share in the operty in favour of his nephews and not the transfer deed. In view of aforesaid evidence on record, it is held that the Courts below did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that impugned transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 was the result of fr misrepresentation and that the said document was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff simplicitor for declaration is not maintainable is rned, it has no merit. It is no doubt true that a simple suit for declaration is not maintainable. However, in the present case, plaintiff not only sought the decree of declaration as to declare the impugned transfer deed to be wrong, illegal, void and ineffective qua his rights being the result of fraud played upon him, he also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the suit property. Not only this, plaintiff furth prayed in the alternative to decree the suit for joint possession of the suit of 7 Pages witness box in support of the plaintiff's case and testified that plaintiff Sansar Singh had not transferred his share in the suit property in the name of defendants i.e. Santokh Singh and his brother Gurdeep Singh. not stop here. Defendant-appellant Gurdeep Singh did not enter the witness box himself. Rather, he examined his wife Smt. Avtar Kaur as his attorney as DW2. The testimony of this witness would reveal that she had absolutely no knowledge regarding the execution of the document in question and most of her replies indicate this. During examination, she categorically stated that on 06.01.2006, Sansar Singh had handed over the original document (brought by her)to her saying in favour of her husband etc. The said statement made by DW2, the attorney/ wife of defendant-appellant clinches the matter and prove that plaintiff Sansar Singh was made to understand on 06.01.2006 that he had executed the Will of his share in the operty in favour of his nephews and not the transfer deed. In view of aforesaid evidence on record, it is held that the Courts below did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that impugned transfer deed dated 06.01.2006 was the result of fraud and misrepresentation and that the said document was not binding on the As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff simplicitor for declaration is not maintainable is rned, it has no merit. It is no doubt true that a simple suit for declaration is not maintainable. However, in the present case, plaintiff not only sought the decree of declaration as to declare the impugned transfer ffective qua his rights being the result of fraud played upon him, he also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from forcibly and illegally dispossessing him from the suit property. Not only this, plaintiff further prayed in the alternative to decree the suit for joint possession of the suit witness box in support of the plaintiff's case and testified that plaintiff Sansar Singh had not transferred his share in the suit property in the name appellant Gurdeep Singh did not enter the witness box himself. Rather, he examined his wife Smt. Avtar Kaur as his attorney as DW2. The testimony of this witness tion of the document in question and most of her replies indicate this. During examination, she categorically stated that on 06.01.2006, Sansar Singh had handed over the original document (brought by her)to her saying in favour of her husband etc. The said appellant clinches the matter and prove that plaintiff Sansar Singh was made to understand on 06.01.2006 that he had executed the Will of his share in the In view of aforesaid evidence on record, it is held that the Courts below did not commit any error in coming to the conclusion that aud and misrepresentation and that the said document was not binding on the As far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the suit of the plaintiff simplicitor for declaration is not maintainable is rned, it has no merit. It is no doubt true that a simple suit for declaration is not maintainable. However, in the present case, plaintiff not only sought the decree of declaration as to declare the impugned transfer ffective qua his rights being the result of fraud played upon him, he also sought a consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from forcibly and illegally er prayed in the alternative to decree the suit for joint possession of the suit JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No. 2179 of 1994 18. counsel for the appellant, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a suit merely for declaration without s maintainable under Section 34 of this Specific Relief Act the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that suit was maintainable as there was an alternative prayer for the decree of possession also. 19. alternative relief of joint possession of property in dispute and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him, therefo maintainable. As such, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the suit is held to be devoid of any merit. 20. there is no reason to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings as recorded by the Courts below, in the absence of any illegality or perversity. As such, holding the appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. 03.09.2025 Jiten RSA No. 2179 of 1994 Page N: 7 of 7 Pages In Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh’s case (supra) counsel for the appellant, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a suit merely for declaration without seeking possession of the property is not maintainable under Section 34 of this Specific Relief Act the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that suit was maintainable as there was an alternative prayer for the decree of ion also. In the present case also, as plaintiff also prayed for the alternative relief of joint possession of property in dispute and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from dispossessing him, therefore, it is held that suit was duly maintainable. As such, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the suit is held to be devoid of any merit. On account of the entire discussion as above, it is held that s no reason to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings as recorded by the Courts below, in the absence of any illegality or perversity. As such, holding the appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : of 7 Pages Gian Kaur Vs. Raghubir Singh’s case (supra), relied by Ld. counsel for the appellant, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a suit merely eeking possession of the property is not maintainable under Section 34 of this Specific Relief Act, 1963. However, in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that suit was maintainable as there was an alternative prayer for the decree of In the present case also, as plaintiff also prayed for the alternative relief of joint possession of property in dispute and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants re, it is held that suit was duly maintainable. As such, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant regarding maintainability of the suit is held to be devoid of any merit. On account of the entire discussion as above, it is held that s no reason to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings as recorded by the Courts below, in the absence of any illegality or perversity. As such, holding the appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No , relied by Ld. counsel for the appellant, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a suit merely eeking possession of the property is not . However, in the case before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that suit was maintainable as there was an alternative prayer for the decree of In the present case also, as plaintiff also prayed for the alternative relief of joint possession of property in dispute and also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants re, it is held that suit was duly maintainable. As such, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant On account of the entire discussion as above, it is held that s no reason to interfere in the well reasoned concurrent findings as recorded by the Courts below, in the absence of any illegality or perversity. As such, holding the appeal to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.03 14:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document