RAMESH KUMAR Vs. CHANDER BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant regular second appeal, at the hands of unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby his suit for declaration was dismissed by the learned trial court, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 12.5.2012 and his first appeal also came to be dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.12.2014, upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 of the impugned judgment, are that initially, plaintiff Ramesh Kumar, filed a suit for declaration, thereby asserting himself, to be owner in possession of residential house, built on land measuring 125.66 square yards i.e 16/720 share of land bearing Khewat No. 552, Khatauni No. 883, khasra number 11904/7572 (9-0), situated in Agwar Waneka, Faridkot and bounded as detailed in the head note of the plaint, on the basis of sale deed dated 31.08.2007 and mutation No. 5369, sanctioned on 27.09.2007 and also sought further declaration to challenge the legality and validity of the attachment, auction/sale and confirmation of sale, in execution application No. 24/09.03.2007, titled as " Chander Bhan v. Surat @ Suraj' and that said attachment, sale and confirmation of sale had no effect upon the rights and title of the plaintiff.

(3.) It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff purchased the suit property, as detailed in the head note of the plaint, vide sale deed dated 31.08.2007. The plaintiff got the same executed and registered, after satisfying and verifying the title and sale-able rights of defendant No.2, over the suit property from all available sources. At the time of execution and registration of the sale deed dated 31.08.2007, defendant No.2 also handed over possession of the suit property to the plaintiff, along with original sale deed dated 28.02.2000, Municipal Committee sanctioned map of the suit property, receipts showing payment made to the Municipal Committee, Faridkot for getting the map sanctioned and receipts of taking connection of electricity in the suit property. The plaintiff came to know about attachment of the suit property, when he obtained jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and then, the plaintiff approached his counsel Shri Inder Pal, Advocate, who after inspection of the file, revealed to the plaintiff that the suit property had been attached in execution of a decree in case, titled as 'Chander Bhan v. Suraj', decided by Shri Sat Pal, the then learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot on 6.1.2007 and had been further put to auction on 09.12.2008 by the Tehsildar, Faridkot, vide order dated 16.10.2008, passed by Smt Rajwinder Kaur, the then learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot. The sale was confirmed on 2.5.2009 by Shri D.P. Singla, the then learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, even though, decree holder/defendant No.1 did not deposit the full sale amount. Further, it was averred that defendant No.2 Surat alias Suraj had no sale-able right, at the time of attachment, sale and confirmation of sale of the suit property, as he had already sold the suit property to the plaintiff, vide sale deed dated 31.8.2007. As such, attachment, sale conducted by the Tehsildar and confirmation of sale, as detailed aforesaid, were null and void, illegal and against the natural justice, having been got passed by the plaintiff/decree holder, now defendant No.1 Chander Bhan by misrepresenting, misleading and keeping in dark by producing old jamabandi of the suit property, as detailed in the head note of the plaint and that the property being attached was a residential house, which was required, to be attached by the Bailiff of the Court and sold in open auction by the Court Auctioneer, instead of revenue official and the property had already been sold to the plaintiff, before attachment of the same and further by not depositing the full sale amount in the Court, before confirmation of the sale. Also further, it was averred that the suit property was purchased by the decree holder, now defendant No.1 himself, after taking permission from the Court, as no one came forward to purchase the same. The attachment of the suit property and then, its sale and confirmation of the sale, as stated aforesaid, had no effect on the rights and title of the plaintiff, over the suit property, as defendant No.2 had sale-able right, at the time of attachment and sale of the same, in view of the sale deed dated 31.8.2007. The plaintiff had been requesting the defendants to admit the clear rights and title to the plaintiff, over the suit property, but to no effect and the same necessitated the filing of the suit.