SUKHWINDER KAUR Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.10183 -C of 2014 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 5 days in re -filing the present appeal is condoned. The civil miscellaneous application stands disposed of accordingly.

(2.) NOW let us see the suit of the appellant -plaintiff, in brief, filed by her in the learned trial Court. Her claim in the suit is that the suit land is the ownership of Shamlat Taraf Pati. Sukhdev Singh and Nihal Singh, father of defendant No.1 was owner in possession of the suit land as a co -sharer. The said Nihal Singh who is father of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendants No.2 and 3 executed a sale -deed of the land measuring 15 marlas as detailed in the head -note of the plaint during his lifetime as per his share in favour of the plaintiff on 29.7.1985 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,000/ - and consequently she became the owner of the suit property. Thereafter, she along with her husband constructed a residential house on this property. Defendants No.2 and 3 earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff and her husband Jaswant Singh in the Court of Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Ajnala in which the application for grant of stay was dismissed. Thereafter, defendant No.1 along with some other persons demolished the abovesaid residential house of the plaintiff on 25/26.9.2005 and took away its debris. In this regard an FIR No.189 of 2005 under Sections 379, 427, 148, 447, 448 read with Section 149 of the IPC was registered against the defendants and his associates. Hence the present suit for recovery of damages along with interest etc.

(3.) IN the matter in dispute, the appellant has mainly relied upon the sale -deed Ex.P2 dated 29.7.1985 in order to substantiate her claim qua suit property. This sale -deed was exhibited in the statement of PW4 Sukhwinder Singh, Registration Clerk. Neither any of the attesting witnesses of this sale -deed nor its scribe was examined to prove its execution. Under the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act at least one attesting witness is required to be examined to prove valid execution of any sale deed which in the present case appellant has failed to do before the learned trial Court. It is settled law that merely marking of exhibit on a document does not dispense with its proof, which is required to be done in accordance with law. Herein the principles as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in LIC of India and Anr. Versus Ram Pal Singh Bisen, 2011 2 SLR 792 and Kaliya Versus State of Madhya Pradesh, 2013 10 SCC 758 are relied upon.