Jaswant Singh vs Jaspal Singh

Jaswant Singh & Ors. .....Appellants

Versus

Jaspal Singh & Ors. .....Respondents

JUDGMENT

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

The judgment dated 27.10.2009 passed by the High Court

of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 3609 of 1998

(O&M) is called into question in this appeal by the unsuccessful

defendants.

2. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by The brief facts leading to this appeal are that Jaspal Singh, SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2019.05.07 16:33:31 IST Reason:

Plaintiff No.1 in the present suit, i.e. O.S. No. 388 of 1986

1 (Respondent No.1 herein), had been residing in West Germany (as

it then was) and had authorised Kidar Singh son of Hem Raj to

do all acts and to file or defend any suit regarding the suit

property vide special power of attorney. The present suit was

filed by Kidar Singh on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 for declaration

that the decree dated 29.07.1983 in Civil Suit No. 18 of 1983

titled as Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. Jaspal Singh, decided by the

Sub­Judge, IInd Class, Panipat, holding Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in

the present suit (the appellants herein) to be the owners in

possession of the suit land, was illegal, null and void, and not

binding on Plaintiff No. 1, and that the registered sale deed dated

05.06.1984 in respect of the suit land executed by Plaintiff No. 1

in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 to 10 in the present suit is legal

and binding on all persons including Defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The

consequential relief of injunction was also sought for. Though

Plaintiff No. 1 at some point got the present suit dismissed as

withdrawn, Defendant Nos. 4 to 10 were later transposed as

plaintiffs, and Plaintiff No. 9 impleaded, and proceedings in the

suit continued. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The decree of

the Trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well

2 as by the Second Appellate Court. This appeal is presented before

us as against the concurrent findings of three courts.

3. All the Courts have concurrently concluded that the

judgment and decree dated 29.07.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.18

of 1983 by the Sub­Judge, IInd Class, Panipat is illegal and does

not bind the plaintiffs (the respondents herein). The Courts have

held that the same is a collusive decree between the plaintiffs and

the defendants in the said suit.

4. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the appellants,

and Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior counsel appearing for

the respondents, have taken us through the entire material on

record and argued in support of their respective cases.

5. All the three Courts, on facts, have rightly concluded that

the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 18 of 1983 was

illegal, and hence not binding on the plaintiffs. A collusive decree

was obtained by the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 18 of 1983

(Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the present suit) by agreeing to deposit

part of the pre­emption money in certain pre­emption suits filed

by Jaspal Singh (Plaintiff No. 1 in the present suit), in lieu of

acquiring rights in the suit property. Thus, the decree created

3 new rights in the suit property in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3,

virtually amounting to a sale deed, and seems to have been used

as a mode to transfer property without a valid sale deed. It is

also found that Plaintiff No. 1 Jaspal Singh had appeared in the

said suit voluntarily, without the issuance of summons to him,

and on the date of appearance, hurriedly admitted the entire case

of the plaintiffs therein, consequent to which the suit was

decreed. Despite such collusive decree, the suit property

continued to be in the name of the original owner, Plaintiff No. 1

Jaspal Singh, who also continued to be in possession thereof.

Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9 in the present suit, who had purchased the

suit property from Plaintiff No. 1 vide sale deed dated

05.06.1984, were held to be bona fide purchasers for valuable

consideration. This was also in light of the circumstance that the

mutation pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1983

was sanctioned after the execution of the sale deed by Plaintiff

No. 1 in favour of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9. Possession of the suit

property had also been handed over to Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9, but it

seems that during the pendency of the matter they were

dispossessed of the same by virtue of an order passed by the

4 Executive Magistrate. We do not find any valid reason to disagree

with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the Courts below.

6. Be that as it may, since we find that all the three Courts

have concurrently and rightly concluded in favour of the plaintiffs

and consequently decreed O.S. No. 388 of 1986, no interference

is called for. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

..........................................J. (N.V. Ramana)

............................................J. (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)

New Delhi;

May 07, 2019.

5