GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. JASWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , by way of Civil Suit No. 402 of July 26, 2007 preferred by him before learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court) sued his widowed daughters in law to seek declaration that mutation No. 759 dated October 10, 2002 sanctioned on the basis of a registered deed of transfer dated October 10, 2002 (Exhibit D1) is illegal being without consideration, jamabandi entries showing his sons as owners of the suit land are wrong and liable to be rectified, and he continues to be owner -in -possession of the suit land as fully described in the body of the plaint; and for perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining them from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property, by alleging that he did not appear before the Sub Registrar and did not execute the deed of transfer which, instead, was result of fraud, misrepresentation and connivance of his deceased sons with attesting witnesses thereof and, as such, inoperative qua his rights. His plea, however, was refuted by the respondents by filing a written statement of denial. Pleadings of the parties gave rise to issues with regard to the declaration and injunction sought by the appellant, maintainability and valuation of the suit, lack of cause of action, locus standi of the appellant, bar of limitation, and absence of statutory notice (as regards respondent No. 04, the Halqa Patwari). Appellant, besides himself appearing as PW1 and tendering Exhibit P1 -khasra girdawari and Exhibit P2 -jamabandi, examined Namberdar Balraj Singh in proof of his plea which was sought to be controverted by the respondents by examining defendants -respondents Harwinder Kaur (DW1) and Surinder Kaur (DW2) and Namberdar Hardeep Singh (DW3). Learned trial court, on appreciation of evidence and after hearing the parties dismissed appellant's suit vide judgment/decree dated December 07, 2011 by holding that execution of the deed of transfer by him in favour of his deceased sons was fully proved and he was not able to prove the plea of fraud. Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court'), vide judgment and decree dated March 11, 2014 has affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial court while dismissing appeal (Civil Appeal No.4 of 2.1.2012) of the appellant.

(2.) TO assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned trial court and the learned first appellate court appellant is in regular second appeal. Besides examining the judgments recorded by the courts below, I have heard appellant's learned counsel, Shri L.S. Sidhu, Advocate. He argues that there was no occasion for the appellant to execute the deed of transfer and evidence brought on record by him sufficiently establishes that it is outcome of fraud played upon him by his deceased sons but the courts below have misread the evidence and have recorded perverse findings to non suit the appellant.

(3.) PERUSAL of the judgments recorded by the courts below, however, reveals that appellant, while appearing as PW1 had admitted his photograph alongwith his sons and Namberdar Malkiat Singh and attesting witness Malkiat Singh, PW2 Balraj Singh, has admitted that the appellant had transferred the suit land in favour of his sons. Deed of transfer, Exhibit D1, is a registered document and registration of a document is a solemn act to be performed in the presence of a competent official appointed to act as a Registrar, whose duty is to attend to the parties during registration process and to see that the proper parties are present, are competent to act and are identified to his satisfaction and all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature are presumed to be done duly and in order. Therefore, the certificate endorsed on the sale deed by the Registering Officer under Section 60 of Registration Act is a relevant piece of evidence for proving its execution (per R Subhash Kumar v. Prabhu Dayal, 1994 PunLJ 443, R, Joginder Singh v. Surinder Singh, 1997 3 CivCC 399, Kartar Kaur v. Bhagwan Kaur, 1993 CivCC 171). There, thus, being a presumption that a registered document is validly executed, onus of proof, therefore, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption (per Prem Singh and Ors. v. Birbal and Ors., 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 381). Sub Registrar, before whom the deed of transfer was registered has not been examined and evidence of Gurcharan Singh (PW1) and Balraj Singh (PW2) is far from being sufficient to rebut the presumption as regards its execution.