MOHINDER KAUR Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur defendant against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed by the trial Court and the appeal filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur-defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

(2.) Gurcharan Singh and Smt. Harminder Kaur plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land measuring 4 Kanal 3 marla being 83/569 share of the total land measuring 28 kanal 9 marla detailed in the heading of the plaint, on the basis of the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 executed by defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh in favour of the plaintiffs. In the said suit, the plaintiffs had also sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the sale deed allegedly executed by defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh in favour of defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur on 24-5-1994 registered on 25-5-1994 was illegal and void, collusive and without consideration and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and the mutation number 9265 sanctioned on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed dated 24/25-5-1995 was also liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs also sought decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from cultivating the land in dispute. It was alleged that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 were recorded as co-sharers in the land measuring 28 kanal 9 marla and that defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh was recorded as owner to the extent of 143 shares and that Kulwant Singh had executed sale deed dated 25-4-1994 regarding land measuring 4 kanal 3 marla being 83/569 shares out of the total land measuring 28 kanal 9 marlas, in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that after the execution of the sale deed when the sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration, defendant No. 1 Kulwant Singh had slipped away from the office of the SubRegistrar and for this reason the said sale deed could not be got registered but later on when application under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act was filed before the Sub-Registrar Kulwant Singh half-heartedly admitted the execution of the sale deed but tried to wriggle out the same by alleging that in fact, it was a mortgage deed and consequently the Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deed on 21-10-1994. It was al leged that thereupon petition under Section 73 of the Registration Act was filed before the Registrar (Collector) and the Registrar vide order dated 11-2-1997 directed the registration of the sale deed and thereupon the Sub-Registrar registered the same on 21-4-1997 in compliance with the orders passed by the Registrar (Collector). It was alleged that during the period when Kulwant Singh defendant No. 1 had been contesting the proceedings before the Sub-Registrar and the Registrar, he had not disclosed and had rather concealed about the execution and registration of the sale deed dated 24-5-1994 in favour of defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur, the real aunt of defendant No. 1. It was alleged that the sale deed dated 24-5-1994 was a fake document without consideration and had been executed to defeat and defraud the sale deed, which was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that in fact that said sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 was illegal and void and it was alleged that defendant No. 2 Smt. Mohinder Kaur was not in actual possession of the land in suit and defendant No. 2 was illegally trying to cultivate and occupy the suit land.

(3.) The said suit was contested by the defendants by filing separate written statements. It was alleged by defendant No. 1 that the sale deed dated 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs was false and a forged document because defendant No. 1 had never executed the said sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that in fact defendant No. 1 had executed a mortgage deed dated 25-4-1994 in favour of the plaintiffs and when defendant No. 1 appeared before the Sub-Registrar and came to know that the plaintiffs had prepared a sale deed, then defendant No. 1 refused to get the said deed registered. Defendant No. 2 alleged that he was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and without notice. Various issues were framed. Parties led evidence.