The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh recently passed a significant judgment on a land dispute related to suit property ownership. The case involved a challenge to a decree in Civil Suit No 18 of 1983, with plaintiff No. 1 authorizing Kidar Singh to act on their behalf regarding the property in West Germany. Stay informed about the details of this case and the court’s ruling by reading on.
Facts
- The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed judgment on 27.10.2009 in RSA No 3609 of 1998 (O&M).
- The defendants who were unsuccessful in the case are now appealing the judgment.
- The defendants are questioning the decision made by the High Court.
- Plaintiff No. 1, Jaspal Singh, authorized Kidar Singh to act on his behalf regarding the suit property in West Germany.
- The present suit was filed by Kidar Singh on behalf of Jaspal Singh to challenge the decree dated 29.07.1983 in Civil Suit No 18 of 1983.
- The suit sought a declaration that the decree in Civil Suit No 18 of 1983 was illegal and not binding on Jaspal Singh.
- Additionally, the suit claimed that a registered sale deed dated 05.06.1984 in favor of Defendant Nos. 4 to 10 was legal and binding on all parties.
- The Trial Court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the judgment and decree of 29.07.1983 to be illegal and not binding on them.
Also Read: Tower Infotech Ltd. Bail Order Appeal
Arguments
- Mr. Vinay Navare and Mr. Brijender Chahar presented arguments for the appellants and respondents respectively.
- All three Courts agreed that the judgment and decree in Civil Suit No 18 of 1983 was illegal, making it non-binding on the plaintiffs.
- The collusive decree in Civil Suit No 18 of 1983 was obtained by the plaintiffs by agreeing to deposit a portion of the pre-emption money in certain suits filed by Jaspal Singh.
Also Read: Priority of Employees’ Dues in Asset Sale: SARFAESI Act vs. Land Revenue Code
Analysis
- The decree created new rights in the suit property in favor of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, which seemed like a mode to transfer property without a valid sale deed.
- Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9, who purchased the suit property from Plaintiff No. 1, were considered bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration.
- The mutation was sanctioned after the execution of the sale deed by Plaintiff No. 1 in favor of Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9.
- Courts found the decree to be collusive between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit.
- Plaintiff No. 1 appeared voluntarily in the suit without summons, admitted the entire case, leading to the decree.
- Despite the decree, the suit property remained in the name of Plaintiff No. 1, who also continued to possess it.
- Possession of the suit property was handed over to Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9.
- Plaintiffs were later dispossessed by an order of the Executive Magistrate.
- Courts found no valid reason to disagree with the lower courts’ conclusions.
- All three Courts concluded in favor of the plaintiffs and decreed in O.S. No 388 of 1986.
Also Read: Landmark Judgement on Consumer Rights in Healthcare Sector
Decision
- The appeal was dismissed based on the grounds presented in the judgment.
- The specific part concerning the RPC (Original Names used) was upheld as part of the dismissal.
- The decision in this specific part was in line with the overall decision to dismiss the appeal.
Case Title: JASWANT SINGH Vs. JASPAL SINGH
Case Number: C.A. No.-005962-005962 / 2010
