HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of RSA Nos. 5197 of 2012 and 2477 of 2013 as identical questions of law and fact are involved for adjudication. For facility of reference, facts are taken from RSA No. 5197 of 2012.

(2.) The present litigation pertains to sale deed dtd. 12/2/1981 purported to be executed by the appellant and Amrik Singh his brother through his attorney Joginder Singh, defendant No. 1 in respect of land measuring 15 kanal 10 marlas but the dispute pertains only to the extent of share of Harbhajan Singh i.e. 7 kanal 15 marlas. The plea of the appellant is that sale deed in question was never executed by him. He migrated to village Rangana Farm Tehsil Karena, District Mujafar Nagar (UP) about 20 years back. He gave land of his share for cultivation to his real brother Sal-winder Singh-defendant No. 5 and he (Salwinder) had been paying share of produce of land to the plaintiff regularly. In December 2004, the appellant came to his native village Ram Kahara, Tehsil Patti and asked Salwinder Singh to pay the rent of share of produce. The appellant suspected some foul play and obtained a copy of jamabandi from patwari halqa and came to know about the alleged sale deed dtd. 12/2/1981 on 27/12/2004. Hence, the suit.

(3.) Defendants No. 1 and 5 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections inter alia that the suit is not within limitation; same is not properly valued; bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; not maintainable as the appellant was never in possession and the appellant has suppressed material facts. It is averred that defendant No. 5 is a bona fide purchaser in good faith for consideration and is protected under Sec. 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. On 12/2/1981, Harbhajan Singh plaintiff and Amrik Singh defendant No. 4 through his attorney Joginder Singh executed sale deed of 15 kanal 10 marlas i.e. 1/5th share each of land measuring 232 kanal 8 marlas for Rs.8000.00. All other material averments of the plaint assailing the sale deed in question are denied with a prayer for dismissal of the suit.