SURINDER KAUR Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for declaration that the order passed by the 1st defendant dated 2.4.1983 passed in Revision Petition No. 149 of 1978 titled as Tara Singh v. Commissioner etc. is illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her ownership rights and possession of the plaintiff of House No. 2510, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

(2.) One Vidhya Dhar became the owner of the suit property by virtue of Conveyance dated 25.6.1956 executed by the then Estate Officer, Chandigarh in respect of a residential plot bearing R.P. No. 4592, Site No. 546, Sector 22 C, Chandigarh. In the year 1961 the said Vidhya Dhar, sold the said plot to one Ram Piari. The said transfer was duly recognised by the Estate Officer. In the year 1961 Ram Piari applied for House Building Loan and a sum of Rs. 15,700/- was sanctioned as loan. Ram Piari executed a security-cum-mortgage deed dated 11.6.1961 in favour of the Estate Officer, Chandigarh., security for repayment of the loan. The loan was payable by 1976 with interest @ 4% p.a. and in case of default in repayment of the loan, it was recoverable as arrears of land revenue. With the said loan and some other money raised by Ram Piari, she constructed 2-1/2 storeyed residential building on the said plot. She could not pay instalments of loan regularly and thus became defaulter and thereafter the Collector initiated proceedings under Section 72 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,720.85 Ps. and also ordered attachment. Later Ram Piari sold the house in favour of the plaintiff under a regd. Sale Deed dated 27.3.1970 without disclosing attachment of the house effected by the Collector and the plaintiff took over the liability to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 22,134.20 Ps. of the loan obtained from the Estate Officer by Ram Piari. According to the plaintiff she was a bona fide purchaser under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that in the year 1970 several transactions of such nature have taken place without obtaining any permission of the Estate Officer. Thus the plaintiff became owner of the house. It is also alleged that the Plaintiff at the time of purchase was put into possession of four rooms since the remaining premises were under the occupation of the tenants. The Executive Magistrate attached the four room by an order passed by him under Section 145 Cr.P.C. and therefore, those four rooms remained under seal from 11.11.1970 to 6.5.1975.