RAJINDER SINGH Vs. GURMEL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.6362-C of 2015 For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed and delay of 220 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No.2432 of 2015

(2.) Therefore, the plaintiff is bonafide purchaser of the disputed plot in good faith and for valuable consideration. State Bank of India had also issued a certificate to the effect that nothing was due towards Balbir Kaur and his guarantor Harvinder Pal Singh. As per plaintiff, the defendant, who had got no concern with the dispute plot, was trying to raise construction therein, illegally and forcibly. He requested the defendant not to interfere in his possession, but to no effect.

(3.) Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over Plot No. A-60. It was further stated that plot No.A-60 was purchased by one Rakesh Kumar from Shalimar Land Project Limited on 20.06.2001 i.e. prior to the sale deed of Balbir Kumar, vendor of the plaintiff. Rakesh Kumar had sold this plot in favour of the defendant vide sale deed dated 25.01.2005, which is prior to the alleged sale deed dated 09.03.2005. Khasra numbers of plot No. A-60 are 80 and 84, whereas Khasra numbers of plot of Balbir Kumar are 81 and 85. It was further stated that the defendant was owner in possession of plot No. A-60 and had already filled foundations and constructed small boundary wall around the said plot. As Balbir Kumar was not owner of 177 Sq. yards of are on 09.03.2005, therefore, he was not competent to sell his plot in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff, in connivance with Balbir Kumar wanted to grab the plot of the defendant. Mutation sanctioned on the basis of alleged sale deed was illegal, null and void. Since plot No. A-60 was not sold by Shalimar Land Project Limited, therefore, the question of its allotment to Balbir Kumar could not arise.