IN THE HI 126 Surjit Kumar & Balbir Chand CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, concurrent fin plaintiff/respo basis of title; a Courts below. 2. status before and the respon 3. plaintiff is own yards) on the b Surjit Kumar/ the same to th E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA ar & Another Vs. nd HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NID Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.K.S. Bedi, Advocate for the respondent. *** PTA, J. The defendants are in s t findings of the learned Courts be espondent herein, for possession o tle; and for permanent injunction, h low. The parties shall hereinafte ore the learned trial Court i.e. the spondent as “plaintiff”. Brief facts of the case set o owner of the house in dispute (me the basis of sale deed dated 14.02.2 / the then owner in possession o to the plaintiff for a consideration o D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2802-2024 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.02.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) NIDHI GUPTA ate in second appeal against the s below whereby the suit of the ion of house in dispute on the , has been decreed by both the nafter be referred to as per their the appellants as “defendants” set out in the plaint are that the (measuring 10.7 marlas i.e. 307 02.2017whereby defendant No.1 on of house in dispute, had sold ion of Rs.7,50,000/-. At the time 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document of execution o possession ov house in dispu of Chandigarh members, the plaintiff by bre illegal occupat visited at villa panchayat of r of the said ho handing over abused the p consequences SSP, Fatehgar No.101 dated against defend is requesting dispute, but t Hence, the pre 4. statement res denying the av on of the sale deed, the defendan n over the house in dispute and af ispute, the plaintiff locked the sam garh and taking benefit of absenc the defendants illegally and forcibl y breaking the locks. The plaintiff c upation of his house by the defenda village Talania to see his house. T of respectables on 08.05.2017 at 0 id house from the defendants, but ver the possession of the house e plaintiff with filthy language an nces. Thereafter, the plaintiff had a garh Sahib on 12.05.2017 again ted 31.07.2017 under Sections 447 fendant No.1 and 3-4 unknown per ing the defendants to hand over ut they totally refused to accede e present suit. Upon notice the defendant resisting the suit taking various e averments in the plaint. The plain dant No.1 put the plaintiff into d after taking possession of the same as the plaintiff is resident ence of plaintiff and his family rcibly occupied the house of the iff came to know about the said endants on 05.05.2017 when he e. The plaintiff also convened a at 07:00 pm for getting vacation , but the defendants instead of use in dispute to the plaintiff, and threatened him with dire ad also moved an application to gainst the defendants and FIR 447,448,506 IPC was registered persons. Since then the plaintiff ver the possession of house in ede the request of the plaintiff. dants appeared and filed written ious objections on merits and plaintiff filed replication denying 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the pleas rai reiterating his 5. issues were fra 6. documentary decided issue defendants; plaintiff liable plaintiff vide appeal agains raised by the defendants in th his pleas as made in the plaint. On the basis of pleading e framed by the learned trial Court: “(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitle as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitle injunction as prayed for? OPP (3) Whether the suit is not mainta (4) Whether the plaintiff has no action to file the present suit? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff has not c hands and has suppressed true a court?OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff is esto conduct to file the present suit? O (6-A) Whether the suit of the pla the purpose of Court fee and jurisd (7) Relief.” On the basis of the ple ary evidence adduced by the part ssues No.1 to 6 in favour of th and issue No.6A in favour of able to pay ad valorem Court fee; ide judgment and decree dated 0 ainst the said judgment and dec their written statement and dings of the parties, following urt:- ntitled to the relief of possession ntitled to the relief of permanent aintainable? OPD s no locus standi and cause of ? OPD not come to the court with clean rue and material facts from the estopped by his own act and it? OPD e plaintiff is properly valued for jurisdiction? OPP pleadings, and the oral and parties, the learned trial Court f the plaintiff and against the of the defendants holding the ee; and decreed the suit of the d 01.10.2022. The defendants’ decree dated 01.10.2022 was 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document dismissed by and decree da 7. that the plain 14.12.2017. Sale Deed is w defendants ha paid to them his cross-exam is submitted t admitted in h payment was payment was demonetisatio Thus, stateme continues to defendants ha 11.02.2017(Ex only for secur clearly mentio abroad then a Sale Deed etc. by the learned District Judge, Fate dated 12.08.2024. Hence, the pres Learned counsel for the ap plaintiff has based his entire claim 7. Whereas the defendants have t is without consideration and was o s have proved on record that no em by the plaintiff. In fact the plain xamination that he has made no pa ed that even PW2 attesting witnes in his evidence including in his af was made. Further, submits that was made. However, in the m sation had taken place which con ement of the plaintiff is utterly false to be in possession of the suit p s have also proved on record th (Ex.D1/A) from which it is clear th ecurity purpose for sending the def ntioned in the said Sale Deed that if en all documents executed betwee etc. will be presumed to be cancelle Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment present second appeal. e appellants-defendants submits claim on the Sale Deed dated ve taken the specific stand the as only for security purpose. The no sale consideration was ever plaintiff himself has admitted in o payment to the defendants. It tness of the Sale Deed had also is affidavit (Ex.PW2/A), that no at plaintiff has stated that cash e month of November, 2016 continued up to March, 2017. false. Furthermore, the appellant uit property. Not only this, the the Agreement to Sell dated ar that the alleged Sale Deed is defendants abroad. It is further at if the defendants are not sent tween the parties including the celled. 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. below have w sale considera plaintiffs who their duty to p of the sale committed ser Sale Deed. misconstrued sale considera and decrees misconstruing the relevant f aside of the im 9. defendants. 10. perused the ca 11. house in dispu property, had dated 14.02.2 time of execut Learned counsel further s e wrongly held that the defendants deration was not received by them. ho have relied upon the Sale Deed to prove the same in accordance w ale consideration. Further the le d serious illegality in not framing an d. Lastly, the learned Courts ued the evidence in this regard whic deration had changed hands. Furth es passed by the learned Courts be uing and piecemeal reading of the e nt facts and law. Learned counsel e impugned judgments and decrees No other argument is I have heard learned coun e case file in great detail. It is the case of the plain ispute as defendant No.1, being ow had sold the same to the plaintif 02.2017 for valuable sale considera ecution of Sale Deed defendant No. er submits that learned Courts ants had failed to prove that the em. It is contended that it is the eed in question and hence it was ce with law including the passing e learned Courts below have g an issue regarding execution of ts below have misread and which prima facie proves that no urther, the impugned judgments s below are result of misreading, he evidence without considering sel accordingly prays for setting rees. is made on behalf of the counsel for the defendants and laintiff that he is owner of the g owner in possession of the suit intiff vide registered Sale Deed deration of Rs.7,50,000/-. At the No.1 had also put the plaintiff in 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document possession of defendants th purpose witho wanted to go possession.The 01.10.2022 ha Sale Deed dat registered doc basis of the sa 12. no.1 had filed Fatehgarh Sah 14.02.2017 ex the defendant vide order da defendant No. the learned A 18.01.2025, a record. Thus, today.Therefor facts, the lear learned trial c n of the suit property. To the con s that the said sale deed was e ithout any exchange of sale consi go abroad. It is claimed that the d The learned trial Court vide ju had decreed the suit of the plain dated 14.2.2017 has not been set a document which carries presumpt e said Sale Deed, the plaintiff had va It is further very importan led a Civil Suit before the learned Sahib for declaration for cancellat 7 executed by him in favour of the dants that the said suit was dismisse r dated 21.01.2019 (Ex.P6). Even No.1 for restoration of the said Civ ed Additional Civil Judge, Senior 5, a copy of which is handed over us, Sale Deed in favour of plaintiff refore, it is a valid document. Accor learned 1st Appellate Court had u ial court. The relevant findings of contrary, it is the case of the s executed purely for security onsideration, as the defendants he defendants continue to be in e judgment and decree dated plaintiff on the finding that the set aside till date and is a validly mption of truth. As such, on the ad valid title. rtant to note that the defendant rned Civil Judge, Senior Division, ellation of the Sale Deed dated the plaintiff. It is not denied by ssed under Order 9 Rule 8 CPC en the application filed by the Civil Suit has been dismissed by ior Division, vide order dated ver in the Court and is taken on intiff has not been cancelled till ccordingly, in view of the above d upheld the judgement of the s of the learned First Appellate 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Court as cont dated 12.08.20 13. nothing to this In view of the 14. 10.02.2025 Sunena Whether spea Whether repo contained in Para 28 of the impu 8.2024 are as under:- “28. Therefore, in view of the disc not proved on the file that the been received by Balbir Chand fro of the documents of the inqu appellant because the official documents were prepared w examining a person who identi person in whose presence the d suffice. The plaintiff Balbir Chand and he is not in possession of the is entitled for the possession of t this court is of the considered opi learned trial court on all the issu appraisals of facts and evidence a Ld. Counsel for the appe this Court to controvert or dispute the above discussion, the present a Pending application(s) if an peaking/reasoned: Yes/No eportable: Yes/No mpugned judgment and decree discussion discussed above, it is the sale consideration has not d from Surjit Kumar. No benefit inquiries can be given to the icial in whose presence said d was not examined. Mere dentified the signatures of the he document is prepared is not and is owner of the suit property f the suit property. Therefore, he of the suit property. Therefore, d opinion that the findings of the e issues are based upon correct ce and are hereby affirmed.” appellant-defendant has shown ute the above facts and findings. nt appeal is dismissed. if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 7 SUNENA 2025.02.15 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document