IN THE HI 116 Rati Ram Smt. Laxmi De CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, judgment and District Judge 10.05.2013 pa Sonepat; wher injunction has 2. the present su exclusive own in Para 1 of t alleged auctio favour of resp Sale Deeds No.5 and 6/re binding on the E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA Vs. i Devi & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. Saurabh Singh, Advoca for the appellant. *** PTA, J. The plaintiff is in second a and decree dated 20.01.2017 passe udge, Sonepat; affirming the jud 3 passed by the learned Additional hereby the suit of the appellant fo has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are nt suit seeking declaration to the e owner in possession of the house in of the plaint. The appellant also ction certificate dated 01.07.1977 respondents No.1 and 2/ defendan dated 28.04.2004 and 17.08.2 respondents No.5 and 6 are illeg the rights on the appellants. It ha D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3022-2018 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.01.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ocate nd appeal against the concurring assed by the learned Additional judgment and decree dated nal Civil Judge (Senior Division), t for declaration and permanent are that the appellant had filed he effect that he is the sole and se in dispute as fully mentioned lso sought declaration that the 77 issued by the Wakf Board in dants No.1 and 2 and registered 8.2007 in favour of defendants illegal, null and void and are not It has been pleaded in the plaint 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document that the plain comprised in k through a regi Ishwar Dass a was serving in he got constru Appellant has and 2/Respon Appellant. It h interest in the are very disho property unde been further pertaining to to grab the certificate. It i only to the pe been further approximately respondents measuring 94 filed an earlie Judge (SD) dire laintiff purchased a plot having a in khasra No.4225/2min situated a registered Sale Deed No.992 dated ss and Munshi Ram. It has been fu g in Indian Army and after purcha structed his house and started livin has no male issue and has only two pondents No.1 and 2 are wife and s . It has been pleaded that respond the suit property. It has been furth dishonest and greedy person and nder the colour of some auction d her pleaded that auction certificat to some other property/land/plot the suit property under the colo It is stated that the Wakf Board ca e person found in possession of the ther pleaded that total area of ately measuring 100 square yard ts No. 1 and 2 might have pu 94 sq. yards. It has been pleaded rlier suit against the Appellant for ) directed both the parties to mainta g an area of 100 square yards ted at Rathdhana Road, Sonepat ated 25.07.1966 from Shobh Raj, n further pleaded that appellant rchasing of the plot in question, living in his house with his wife. two daughters. Defendants No.1 nd son of the real brother of the pondents have no right, title or urther pleaded that respondents and they want to grab the suit n deed from Wakf board. It has ificate issued by Wakf Board is plot. But the respondents want colour of the alleged auction d can give its property in auction f the concerned property. It has of Khasra No.4225/2 min is yards but the Appellant and e purchased some other land ed that defendants No. 1 and 2 for injunction and the then Civil aintain status quo with regard to 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document construction respondents N mentioning an purchased the pendency of t purchasers. A to no use. Wit 3. appeared and title of the app purchased any vendor had n filed by the ap issues were 13.01.2009: - on and possession over the di ts No.1 and 2 have withdrawn thei g any reason. It has been pleaded t the suit property from responde of the suit and as such they canno s. Appellant requested the respond With these pleadings, the present s Upon notice, the defenda and filed reply resisting the suit of appellant was disputed by inter ali any share from the Khasra No.4225 d no title to pass to the appellan e appellant. On the basis of pleadi re framed by the learned tria - “1. Whether the plaintiff is owne in dispute as detailed in paragra and the auction certificates date Wakf certificate dated 01.07.199 in favour of defendant numbers 1 not binding on the rights of the p property? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has not present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit of the plainti present form?OPD disputed property. But the their suit on 31.08.2007 without ed that respondents No.5 and 6 ondents No. 1 to 3 during the annot take the plea of bonafide pondents to admit his claim but nt suit was filed. ndants/respondents herein had it of the appellant/plaintiff. The r alia pleading that he had never 4225/2min; and even his alleged llant. No rejoinder thereto was eadings of the parties, following trial Court vide order dated wner in possession of the house agraphs number 1 of the plaint dated 01.07.1997 issued by the .1997 issued by the Wakf Board ers 1 and 2 are null and void and the plaintiff in respect of the suit not cause of action to file the aintiff is not maintainable in the 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4. learned trial C judgment and 02.07.2013 be was also dism the present se 5. learned lower appellant; wh and the suit o appellant had from the rea 25.07.1966 (M parcel of Khas the plot in que passage of tim misconstrued 6. despite knowi have no title No.4 and 6 to respondents h 4. Relief.” On the basis of evidence rial Court dismissed the suit of th and decree dated 10.05.2013. The before the learned Additional Di dismissed vide judgment and decre t second appeal. Learned counsel for the a wer Courts have wrongly decided whereas this issue ought to have uit of the appellant has therefore b had purchased the plot in dispute real owner through registered 6 (Mark A). The plot purchased by t hasra No.4225. The appellant even question where he is residing with f time, the surrounding of the plo ued by the learned Courts below. It is further submitted that owing that they are not real owner itle or right thereto, further sold t 6 to avoid legal implication. It is co ts have played fraud and concea nce led by both the sides, the f the appellant with costs vide The appellant filed appeal dated l District Judge, Sonepat; which ecree dated 20.01.2017. Hence, he appellant contends that the ided the issue No.1 against the ave been decided in his favour, re been wrongly dismissed. The ute measuring 100 square yards red Sale Deed No.992 dated by the appellant was a part and ven constructed his house upon ith his family. However, with the plot changed, which has been that the respondents No.1 and 2 ners of the plot in question and ld the said plot to respondents is contended that therefore, the ncealment. However, this legal 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document aspect has no contended th after spending fraudulently a house tax rece illegal possess detected by t No.2, the learn Ex. Pl/A, P-2 a the appellant favour of the accordingly pr Courts below b 7. 8. perused the ca 9. present appea been issued as appearance 15.01.2020, 2 and 16.09.202 s not been considered by the learn that the appellant has purchase ding huge amount of money. The r tly and in connivance with the offic receipts Ex. D10 to D20 in their own session. The intention of responden by the learned Courts below. Whi learned Courts below failed to cons 2 and Mark-'A' minutely. Thus, in ant both the issues No.1 and 2 oug the appellant rather wrongly decide ly prayed that the impugned judgm low be set aside. No other argument is raise I have heard learned cou e case file in great detail. At the very outset, it ma ppeal pertains to the year 2018. H d as the matter has been adjourne e of the learned counsel for the 0, 20.04.2023, 21.09.2023, 28.11.20 .2024. Page 5 of 12 earned lower Courts below. It is ased the 100 square yard plot he respondents No.1 and 2 had officials of M.C. Sonepat got the own name just to establish their ndents No.1 and 2 has not been hile deciding issues No.1 and onsider the records/ documents in face of the stand taken by ought to have been decided in cided against the appellant. It is dgments and decree of learned aised on behalf of the appellant. counsel for the appellant and t may be pointed out that the 8. However, notice has not yet rned at the request/due to non- the appellant on 08.08.2018, 1.2023, 23.01.2024, 16.05.2024 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. owner in po comprised in K dated 25.07.1 as per the un which the app mention the K evidence on re clear. On the o produced by t proved that t matched with (Ex.D1 to D4) Court returned On merits, it is the case o possession of the suit land me in Khasra No.4225/2min by way of 07.1966 (Mark A). However, a perus uncontroverted evidence on reco appellant claims to have purchase he Khasra number allegedly purchas on record, even the title of the vend he other hand, as per the sale/auct by the defendants No.1 and 2/resp at the suit plot was allotted to th ith the surroundings as mentioned D4). In this regard, the relevant f rned vide judgment and decree date “9. The plaintiff was also suppos vendors. In this respect, it is sub number has not been given in plaintiff claims to have purchase has pleaded in his plaint that the p part and parcel of khasra numbe P-1 (Hindi version Exhibit P-1/A), owners were in possession of h Therefore, even if it is presumed that the plot purchased by the pla of khasra number 4225, but the f vendors of the plaintiff was also n se of the appellant that he was measuring 100 square yards y of registered Sale Deed No.992 erusal of the record reveals that record, the said Sale Deed from ased the suit plot, did not even chased by him. In fact, as per the vendors of the appellant was not auction certificates (Ex.D1 to D4) /respondents No.1 and 2, it was to them; and that the suit plot oned in the said sale certificates nt findings of the learned trial dated 10.05.2013 are as under:- pposed to prove the title of his s submitted that though Khasra n in the sale deed under shich hased the suit plot; however he the plot purchased by him was a mber 4225. A perusal of Exhibit /A), makes it clear that the real of hasab rasad rakba khewat. med for the sake of arguments e plaintiff was a part and parcel the fact remains that the title of lso not clear. Since the names of 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document fa plaintiffs vendors were recorde column, therefore, in order to pr under an obligation to prove the khewat and also that they were than their legitimate share. How evidence on this aspect. Therefore vendor was not clear. 10. Learned counsel for the plain on his contention that since the p square yards and since the imp faovur of defendant numbers 1 a land measuring 94 square yard should be drawn that the defenda the allottees of the plot in dispu plaintiff was painfully remained plaintiff cannot draw benefit defendants case. He has to sail a his own case. If the above referred argument plaintiff is accepted then in th would be permitted to lay his ha 100 square yards and situated to Road. Therefore, there is no forc other hand, as discussed above prove the title of his vendors and his own sale deed and he has also purchased by him is the suit p neighbors have changed with the of the sale certificates, issued in f 1 and 2 rather reveals that it is t allotted to them. The surrounding corded only in the possession to prove their title, plaintiff was e their share in the hasab rasad were not in possession of more However, there is absolutely no efore, even the title of plaintiff's plaintiff has placed more weight the plot in dispute measures 100 impugned allotment letters in s 1 and 2 are in respect of total yards, therefore, an inference fendant numbers 1 and 2 are not dispute. Learned counsel for the ined of the golden rule that the nefit from the weakness of sail at his own and has to prove ent of learned counsel for the n that eventuality the plaintiff is hands on all plots measuring ed to the east of the Rathdhana force in this contention. On the bove the plaintiff has failed to s and he has also failed to prove also failed to prove that the plot it plot only and that only his h the passage of time. A perusal d in favour of defendant number it is the suit plot only which was dings of the suit plot match with 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. the appellant be noted that Ex. D 10 to Ex. suit property Admittedly, th person found impugned sale defendants. in Para 11 of th the surroundings of the proper certificates….” It has further been conten ant that he is in possession of the sa that the defendants no. 1 and 2 had o Ex. D 20 from 1997-98, to demons erty was in the possession of the Wakf Board can give its pro und in possession of the concern sale certificates have been correc The relevant findings of the lear of the impugned judgment are as u “11. The next question to be de whether the plaintiff is in possess this respect it is submitted th contradictory stands in his plain pleaded that the impugned sal defendant numbers 1 and 2, do and on the other hand he has pl possession therefore, alleged sa been issued in his favour. This la per him also the sale certificates is numbers 1 and 2, pertain to the s sale certificates were issued in th 1997 and the defendant numbe record, house tax receipts with ef (Exhibit D-10 to Exhibit D-20). makes it ample clear that ea operty described in these sale ntended by learned counsel for e said plot. In this regard, it is to had produced house tax receipts onstrate that prior to them, the of father of defendant no.2. property in auction only to the cerned property. As such, the rrectly issued to the concerned learned trial Court as contained as under:- e decided by this court is as to ssession of the suit plot or not. In d that the plaintiff has taken plaint. On the one hand he has sale certificates in favour of , do not pertain to the suit plot as pleaded that since he was in d sale certificates should have is later pleading implies that as tes issued in favour of defendant the suit plot only. The impugned in the months of June and July mbers 1 and 2 have placed on ith effect from 1997-98 onwards. 0). A perusal of these receipts t earlier the suit plot was in 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12. had failed to Sale Deed; had the suit plot; a of time; or tha possession of Sh. Hari Ram-the fa and the husband of defendant n certificates have been issued in fa 1 and 2. Therefore, it is ample cl certificates have been issued on t An inference can be safely drawn certificate, the concerned autho possession of the proposed vend these sale certificates also reveal tune of Rs. 29126/- was also pai Therefore, also an inference can b numbers 1 and 2 only were in before issuance of the impug plaintiff was therefore required to he took posesson of the suit plo iota of independent evidence, e pleadings of the self serving sta providing plaintiff's possession o examined two witnesses of reco other hand the house tax receip defendant numbers 1 and 2 are s possession. Therefore, the plaintif possession over the suit plot.” As such, the ld. trial Court to prove the title of his vendors; ; had failed to prove that the plot p lot; and that only his neighbours ha that the Authorities have illegally he father of defendant number 2 nt number 1. however the sale in favour of defendant numbers le clear that the impugned sale on the basis of possession only. rawn that before issuing the sale authorities, must have verified vendees/allottees. A perusal of eveals that compensation to the o paid by the vendees/allottees. can be drawn that the defendant e in possession of the suit plot pugned sale certificates. The ed to prove as to how and when t plot. However, there is not an ce, except for the controverted g statement of the plaintiff, for ion over the suit plot. He has record and one himself. On the eceipts placed on record by the are sufficient to infer defendants aintiff has also failed to prove his urt concluded that the appellant ors; had failed to prove his own ot purchased by him was indeed s had changed with the passage ally sold his plot to respondents 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document No.1 and 2. Ac in favour of dismissed. 13. no evidence Appellate Cou are as under: ja Accordingly issue No.1 was decid of the defendants. Accordingly, The appeal filed by the pl ce to the contrary was produce Court. Relevant findings of the lea er:- “13. It is admitted fact that th 13.07.1966 executed by Shobh R not been produced by plaintiff o photocopy of the sale deed l evidence Act, marked docume consideration. But considering the was produced from the record of was brought by PWl Ms Ajit Ka Tehsil Officer Sonepat, Sonepat and in the interest of justice, con into consideration to ascertain th purchased the suit property in que deed Mark-A dated 13.07.1966 S on behalf of Ishwar and Kanshi Ra of attorney sold 100 sq. yards la Net Ram, NO Khasra number has deed Mar-A. The entire case of t deed Mark-A dated 13.07.196 jamabandi for the year 1966-67, and as per Ex. P1/A Shobh Raj an Chand were shown to be in poss land bearing Khasra No. 6839/4 ecided against the appellant and gly, suit of the appellant was e plaintiff was also dismissed as duced even before the lower learned lower Appellate Court t the original sale deed dated bh Raj in favour of plaintiff has tiff on the record. Mark-A is the d l dated 13.07.1966. As per ument cannot be taken into the fact that sale deed Mark A rd of Sub Registrar Sonepat and jit Kaur Registration clerk from pat and in these circumstances , contents of sale deed are taken in the fact whether the plaintiff n question or not. As per the sale 66 Shobh Raj on his behalf and hi Ram being their special power ds land in favour of the plaintiff r has been mentioned in the sale of the plaintiff is based on sale 7.1966. Ex.Pl is the copy of 67, Ex. P1/A is Hindi Translation aj and Ishwar Dass sons of Prem possession as co sharers in the 39/4225 measuring 5K-5M. The 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14. the appellant/ suit land is owned by Shamlat Pa RaqbaKhewat. Name of Kanshi Ra in the jamabandi Ex.Pl pertaining Therefore, as per Ex. Pl Kanshi R Khasra No. 6839/4225 and as su some other property. Khasra NO mentioned in the sale deed Mark cannot be said that sale deed M property shown in jamabandi Ex. P XXX 15. On the other hand, defendan property by way of sale dee department and Ex.D1 to EXD3 a sale deeds in favour of defend mentioned that property sold by defendants No. 1 and 2 beari situated at Rathdhana Road. Th the sale deeds Ex.D1 to Ex. D3 shown by the plaintiff in the Therefore, it is clear that boundar to Ex. D3 tally with the suit proper 2 purchased the said property fro these circumstances, defendants the suit property from custodian hand plaintiff failed to prove the of the suit land vide sale deed Ma Accordingly, by way of con ant/plaintiff was dismissed. Page 11 of 12 at Patti MusalmanHasab, Rasad, shi Ram has not been mentioned ning to the year 1966-67. shi Ram has gotno concern with as such sale deed Mark-A is of a NO. 6839/4225 has not been ark-A. In these circumstances, it ed Mark-A is pertaining to the i Ex. P1/A. ndants No.1 and 2 got the suit deed executed by custodian D3 are sale deeds. In all of these efendants, it has been clearly ld by Tehsildar sale in favour of earing plot No. 4225/2min is . The boundaries mentioned in . D3 tally with the boundaries the plaint i.e. the suit land. ndaries mentioned in the Ex. D1 roperty and defendants No.1 and y from custodian department. In ants proved that they purchased dian department. On the other the fact that he became owner Mark-A dated 25.07.1966.” f concurrent findings, the suit of 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15. controvert or d 16. 17. 13.01.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo Learned counsel for th t or dispute the aforesaid findings of In view of the above, prese Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No the appellant is unable to gs of the learned Courts below. resent appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 12 SUNENA 2025.01.22 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document