VEERO Vs. SHIV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only issue pressed in this second appeal is as to whether defendants 6 and 7, namely, Sucha Singh and Lakhwinder are the bona fide purchasers of the suit land for valuable consideration. It is the case of the plaintiff that Dayal Singh was owner of the suit land and on his death, plaintiffs (appellants herein) being the heirs, succeeded to his property along with his other sons and widow. Upon appearance, defendants 6 and 7 contested the suit and submitted that Satnam Singh, grand-son of Dayal Singh was owner of the suit land and they have purchased the same from him for valuable consideration. Trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal preferred by defendants 6 and 7, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside and in consequence thereof, suit of the plaintiff dismissed. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiffs.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs has contended that Satnam Singh grand-son of Dayal Singh had no right or title in the property and therefore, was not competent to transfer the same in favour of defendants 6 and 7. It is contended that judgment and decree dated 21.5.1981 passed in civil suit No. 37 of 1981 is not binding on the plaintiffs as it did not confer any right or title on Satnam Singh, grand-son of Dayal Singh nor he could have transferred any right or title in favour of defendants 6 and 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Trial Court has held that Dayal Singh was the owner of the suit land. In civil suit No. 37 of 13.3.1981, Dayal Singh suffered a decree in regard to land measuring 72 kanals 18 marlas in favour of his wife, two sons and grand-son, namely, Satnam Singh son of Shiv Singh son of Dayal Singh. Mutation on the basis of decree dated 21.5.1981 was sanctioned. Dayal Singh died on 10.11.1984, i.e. after more than three years of the passing of the decree. It is also the admitted case of the parties that Dayal Singh during his life time, never challenged the decree and the said decree attained finality. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs after eight years of the death of Dayal Singh, i.e. more than 12 years after passing of the decree. For all these years, the land stood in the name of Satnam Singh son of Shiv Singh and on the basis of the entries in the revenue record, defendants 6 and 7 purchased land from Satnam Singh son of Shiv Singh. First appellate Court on proper appreciation of the evidence brought on record correctly held that defendants 6 and 7 are bona fide purchasers for consideration and the sale in their favour is not liable to be set aside. I may add that the sons and widow of Dayal Singh have not come forward to contest the suit filed by plaintiffs, meaning thereby that they have joined hands together with the plaintiffs to deprive defendants 6 and 7 of the property which they bona fide purchased for consideration from Satnam Singh. Consequently, no interference in second appeal is called for. Appeal is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.