LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-297

NARANJAN SINGH Vs. RANJIT SINGH

Decided On January 07, 2015
NARANJAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
RANJIT SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Courts below as his suit was dismissed.

(2.) DETAILING the facts, the plaintiff's case was that he was owner to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land in dispute alongwith his brother Sarup Singh. Sarup Singh used to look after the property as he was residing in Delhi. The land in dispute is situated in village Tibba, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. In January 2004, when the plaintiff visited his native village in order to negotiate the sale of his property including the suit land, he came to know that the defendant had already prepared a false sale deed. On enquiry from the villagers and the revenue record, he found that the defendant Ranjit Singh in connivance with his brother Sarup Singh and the marginal witnesses had fabricated a false sale deed dated 30.11.1981. The case set up by the plaintiff was that he had never sold the land. The plea raised by the plaintiff was that the sale to the extent of his share did not confer any right on the defendant. The plaintiff approached the police and lodged a complaint against the persons who were involved. The Lambardar, a witness to the document had already died and the defendant was residing in Muscat. The trial commenced and the Court convicted Bakshish Singh and Sarup Singh vide judgment dated 20.02.2007. In 2005, Ranjit Singh through his wife Satinder Kaur being his attorney filed a suit in September 2005 asserting their title in the land in suit claiming title on the basis of the sale deed dated 30.11.1981 which was dismissed on 17.10.2006. The plaintiff requested the attorney to admit his claim and hand over the possession. It was pleaded that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff in January 2004 when he came to know of the false sale deed. The plaintiff prayed for a decree of possession and cancellation of the sale deed.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed: -