JOGINDER SINGH Vs. ARJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff, who had lost in the two courts below and brought for hearing on substantial questions of law formulated below:-

(2.) The entire property of 0-5-16 belonged to Basant Singh. The plaintiff claimed as a purchaser of 33/116 shares through a sale deed dated 15.11.1958 and they claimed a further extent of 43/116 shares under an agreement dated 08.07.1960 which was later taken as a basis for an oral conveyance after receipt of the balance on 19.12.1960. The defendant contended that he had purchased the property of 40/116 share originally from Basant Singh's son of Karnail Singh through an agreement dated 09.07.1963 and later through a sale deed from Karnail Singh's sons, namely, D2 and D3 on 06.12.1983. There was no dispute with reference to the plaintiff's purchase of 33/116 share, but the dispute was only with reference to a document referred to in the agreement dated 08.07.1960. With reference to 43/116 share, the plaintiff's contention was that after the registered sale deed and the agreement on the basis of which possession was handed over to him in December 1960, he constructed a house and he had been living in the property referable to 76/116 share. The defendant contended that the alleged possession as having been delivered subsequent to the agreement was not true and indeed, even the plea that after a notice issued by the plaintiff on 19.12.1960, possession was handed over to him could not be true since Basant Singh had actually expired at that time. The death certificate of Basant Singh which had been filed in Court purported to show that Basant Singh had died on 28.09.1960.

(3.) Before the trial Court, plaintiff brought witnesses PW3 and PW4 to state that they interceded on behalf of the plaintiff when Basant Singh secured the balance of sale consideration and the property put in possession of the plaintiff. The Court rejected this contention as artificial and reasoned that if the parties had known that there was a dispute pursuant to the agreement and the plaintiff had been compelled to issue a notice, the plaintiff would not have remained without taking a sale deed and having it duly registered. He further reasoned that the plaint itself did not contain any reference to PW3 and PW4 as having caused favourable intercession on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court, therefore, rejected the contention that there was delivery of possession of property in favour of the plaintiff.