KEWAL KRISHAN versus RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC on 22 November 2021

588

[2021] 11 S.C.R. 588

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 11 S.C.R.

A

KEWAL KRISHAN

v.

RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 6989-6992 of 2021)

B

NOVEMBER 22, 2021

[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]

Transfer of Property Act: s.54 – Case of plaintiff-appellantwas that he had executed a power of attorney in favour of his brotherC– Acting on the basis of power of attorney, his brother executed twosale deeds – The first sale deed was executed in favour of his sonsand the other in favour of his wife – Plaintiff filed two suits – Onewas against his brother and his minor sons and the other was againsthis brother and his wife – Defence of defendant-brother was thatDhe was in muscat and earning well and remitting money to his brotherto purchase properties in his name – However, while purchasingthe properties, plaintiff had got his name incorporated as jointpurchaser – Trial court accepted the case of defendant anddismissed the suit – First appellate court partly allowed the appealholding that both the brothers were joint purchaser – High CourtEupheld the view that both the brothers were joint owners of suitproperties and the suits for declaration of invalidty of the sale deedswere barred by limitation and the sale considerations mentioned inthe sale deeds executed in 1981 of Rs.5500 and Rs.6875 were notexhorbitant and the amounts were not out of reach of the sons andFwife of defendant-brother – On appeal, held: The modified decreepassed by High Court on the basis of the finding that the plaintiffand defendant-brother were the joint owners of the suit propertiesas the defendant-brother failed to establish his claim that he wasthe sole owner of the suit properties – Defendants did not challengethe impugned judgment and therefore, the finding that the plaintiffGand defendant-brother were the joint owners of the suit propertieshas become final – Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced onrecord by defendant-brother that his minor sons and his wife hadany source of income at the relevant time and that they paid himconsideration as mentioned in the sale deed – There is a categoricalfinding recorded by trial court that defendant-brother by takingH

advantage of the power of attorney, transferred the suit lands tohis own minor sons and his wife without any consideration – HighCourt did not disturb the finding recorded by trial court regardingthe failure of the defendants to adduce evidence regarding thepayment of consideration under the sale deeds – High Court merelyobserved that the sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,875/-was not exorbitant and was not out of reach of minor sons and wife– High Court ignored that it was considering a case of sale deedsof the year 1981 and that the purchasers under one of two saledeeds were minor and it was not even pleaded that they had anysource of income – The same was the case with the sale deed executedin favour of his wife – Thus, defendants-respondents failed toadduce any evidence to prove that the minor sons and wife had anysource of income and that they had paid the consideration payableunder the sale deed.

Transfer of Property Act: s.54 – Sale without consideration –A sale of an immovable property has to be for a price – The pricemay be payable in future – It may be partly paid and the remainingpart can be made payable in future – The payment of price is anessential part of a sale covered by s.54 of the TP Act – If a saledeed in respect of an immovable property is executed withoutpayment of price and if it does not provide for the payment of priceat a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law – Therefore,such a sale will be void – It will not effect the transfer of theimmovable property – It is the specific case made out in the plaintsas originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the same are withoutconsideration – It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchaserswho were minor sons and wife had no earning capacity – Noevidence was adduced by defendant-brother about the payment ofthe price mentioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacityat the relevant time of his wife and minor sons – Hence, the saledeeds will have to be held as void being executed withoutconsideration – Hence, the sale deeds did not affect in any mannerone half share of the appellant in the suit properties – In fact, sucha transaction made by defendant-brother of selling the suit propertieson the basis of the power of attorney to his own wife and minorsons is a sham transaction – It was not necessary for the plaintiff tospecifically claim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way ofamendment to the plaint – The reason being that there were specific AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apleadings in the plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds werevoid – A document which is void need not be challenged by claiminga declaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even incollateral proceedings – Hence, the issue of bar of limitation of theprayers for declaration incorporated by way of an amendment doesnot arise at all – As no title was transferred under the said saleBdeeds, the plaintiff continues to have undivided half share in thesuit properties – Decree passed by trial court that the plaintiff isentitled to joint possession of the suit properties along with hisdefendant-brother is restored.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtC

HELD:1. There is a specific finding recorded by the DistrictCourt that there was no evidence adduced to show that SudarshanKumar’s wife and minor children paid consideration as shown inthe sale deeds. In fact, before the District Court, it was pleadedthat Sudarshan Kumar’s wife had brought some money from herDparents. The District Court held that no evidence was adducedto prove the said contention. Therefore, there is a categoricalfinding recorded by the District Court that Sudarshan Kumar, bytaking advantage of the power of attorney, transferred the suitlands to his own minor sons and his wife without any consideration.EThe High Court has not disturbed the finding recorded by theDistrict Court regarding the failure of the respondents to adduceevidence regarding the payment of consideration under the saledeeds dated 10[th] April 1981. The High Court merely observedthat the sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,875/- was notexorbitant and was not out of reach of Sudarshan Kumar’s sonsFand wife. Perhaps, the High Court has ignored that it wasconsidering a case of sale deeds of the year 1981 and that thepurchasers under one of two sale deeds were minor sons ofSudarshan Kumar and it was not even pleaded that they had anysource of income. The same is the case with the sale deedGexecuted by Sudarshan Kumar in favour of his wife. Thus,undisputed factual position is that the respondents failed to adduceany evidence to prove that the minor sons and Sudarshan Kumar’swife had any source of income and that they had paid the considerationpayable under the sale deed. [Para 14][597-H, 598-A-F]

H

H

2. A sale of an immovable property has to be for a price.The price may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and theremaining part can be made payable in future. The payment ofprice is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TPAct. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executedwithout payment of price and if it does not provide for the paymentof price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. Itis of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It willnot effect the transfer of the immovable property. [Para 15][598-A-F]

3. Now, coming back to the case in hand, both the sale deedsrecord that the consideration has been paid. That is the specificcase of the respondents. It is the specific case made out in theplaints as originally filed that the sale deeds are void as the sameare without consideration. It is pleaded that the same are shamas the purchasers who were minor sons and wife of SudarshanKumar had no earning capacity. No evidence was adduced bySudarshan Kumar about the payment of the price mentioned inthe sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevanttime of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will haveto be held as void being executed without consideration. Hence,the sale deeds did not affect in any manner one half share of theappellant in the suit properties. In fact, such a transaction madeby Sudarshan Kumar of selling the suit properties on the basis ofthe power of attorney of the appellant to his own wife and minorsons is a sham transaction. Thus, the sale deeds will not conferany right, title and interest on Sudarshan Kumar’s wife andchildren as the sale deeds will have to be ignored being void. Itwas not necessary for the appellant to specifically claim adeclaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment tothe plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings inthe plaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. Adocument which is void need not be challenged by claiming adeclaration as the said plea can be set up and proved even incollateral proceedings. Hence, the issue of bar of limitation ofthe prayers for declaration incorporated by way of an amendmentdoes not arise at all. As no title was transferred under the saidsale deeds, the appellant continues to have undivided half sharein the suit properties. That is how the District Court passed the AB

C

D

E

F

GH

Adecree holding that the appellant is entitled to joint possessionof the suit properties along with Sudarshan Kumar. The decreepassed by the District Court deserves to be restored. [Paras 16,17][599-E-H; 600-A-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6989-B6992 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.05.2015 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal Nos.1930 and 1931 of 1988 (O&M), and Order dated 11.08.2015 in R.A.No.54-C of 2015 in Regular Second Appeal No.1930 of 1988 (O&M)Cand Order dated 19.08.2015 in R.A. No.55-C of 2015 in Regular SecondAppeal No.1931 of 1988 (O&M).

Neeraj Kr. Jain, Umang Shankar, Nirmal Singh Berchiwal, Advs.for the Appellant.

Surjeet Singh, Sr. Adv., Roshan Lal Sharma, K. G. Bhagat, VineetDBhagat, Ms. Archna Midha, Ms. Manju Bhagat, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY S. OKA, J.

ELeave granted.

FACTUALASPECTS

1. The appellant Kewal Krishan and his elder brother (one of therespondents) Sudarshan Kumar acquired the properties which are thesubject matter of these appeals (for short “the suit properties”) underFthe sale deeds dated 12[th] August 1976 and 19[th] October 1976.

2. The appellant Kewal Krishan executed a power of attorney infavour of Sudarshan Kumar on 28[th] March 1980. Acting on the basisofthe said power of attorney, two sale deeds were executed by SudarshanKumar on 10[th] April 1981. The first sale deed was executed by him byGwhich he purported to sell a part of the suit properties to his minor sons.The sale consideration was shown as Rs.5,500/-. The other sale deedwas executed by Sudarshan Kumar in favour of his wife in respect ofremaining part of the suit properties. The consideration shown in thesale deed was of Rs.6,875/-. The respondents are Sudarshan Kumar,his wife and his sons.H

3. Two separate suits were instituted by the appellant on10[th] May 1983. One was against Sudarshan Kumar and his two sonsand the other one was against Sudarshan Kumar and his wife. Both thesuits, as originally filed, were for injunction restraining the defendantsfrom interfering with the possession of the appellant and from alienatingthe share of the appellant in the suit properties. In the alternative, aprayer was made for passing a decree for possession. On 23[rd] November,1985, the plaint in both the suits was amended by incorporating the reliefof declaration that the power of attorney and sale deeds were null andvoid. A prayer was also incorporated for a money decree for the shareof the appellant in the compensation awarded in respect of a tube wellon the suit properties.

4. Sudarshan Kumar contested the suit along with otherrespondents. It is the case of Sudarshan Kumar that he was employedin Muscat and was earning a large income. It is the further case ofSudarshan Kumar that at the relevant time, the appellant wasunemployed. From time to time, he remitted amounts to the appellantfrom his own earnings. Sudarshan Kumar had negotiated for purchasingthe suit properties. According to his case, the suit properties were to bepurchased only in his name. His contention is that while getting the saledeeds executed on 12[th] August 1976 and 19[th] October 1976, the appellantgot his name incorporated as a purchaser along with Sudarshan Kumar.According to the case of Sudarshan Kumar, the appellant was abenamidar. In short, the contention of Sudarshan Kumar is that he is thesole owner of the suit properties. His further contention is that by writinga letter to him on 15[th] April 1980, the appellant accepted his sole ownershipand that is how the appellant voluntarily executed the power of attorneydated 23[rd] March 1980 which was duly registered under the IndianRegistration Act, 1908 under which Sudarshan Kumar was appointed ashis attorney in respect of the suit properties. Therefore, the contentionof Sudarshan Kumar is that the sale deeds are legal and valid. Apartfrom these contentions on merits, it was contended by Sudarshan Kumarthat the prayers for declaration incorporated subsequently by way ofamendment in relation to the two sale deeds and the power of attorneywere barred by limitation. It was contended that even the prayer madefor grant of his share in the compensation in respect of tube well wasbarred.

5. The Trial Court dismissed the suits filed by the appellant. TheTrial Court held that the suit lands were intended to be purchased only A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aby Sudarshan Kumar and that is how the original sale deeds were inpossession of Sudarshan Kumar. The Trial Court accepted the contentionthat he was the exclusive owner and the appellant wasthe benamidar.The Trial Court upheld the contention of Sudarshan Kumar regardinglegality and validity of the power of attorney and both the sale deedswhich were the subject matter of challenge. Trial Court held that asBSudarshan Kumar was the only owner of the suit properties, the appellantwas disentitled to any relief. The Trial Court also held that the prayer forgrant of a share in compensation in respect of the tube well was barredby provisions of Rule 2 of Order II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

6. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the appellantCpreferred two appeals before the District Court. The appeals were partlyallowed. The District Court held that Sudarshan Kumar did not step intowitness box and except for the bald statement made by the attorney ofSudarshan Kumar in his evidence, nothing was placed on record to showthat the entire sale consideration for acquiring suit properties was paidDby him. The District Court held that as the case of Sudarshan Kumarwas that the money was transmitted from a foreign country to theappellant, it was easily possible for Sudarshan Kumar to adducedocumentary evidence to show that money was transferred to theappellant as alleged in his written statement. Therefore, the District Courtaccepted that both the appellant and Sudarshan Kumar were the jointEowners of the suit properties. The District Court also held that the sonsof Sudarshan Kumar and the wife of Sudarshan Kumar had a noticethat the appellant had one half share in the suit properties as there wasa recital to that effect in the sale deeds executed by Sudarshan Kumar.It was further held that Sudarshan Kumar, his sons and his wife failed toFadduce any evidence to show that the price was paid as mentioned inthe impugned sale deeds. The District Court observed that while executingthe sale deed in favour of his wife, Sudarshan Kumar described his wifeas the daughter of one Mehar Chand and that she has not been describedas his wife. The District Court held that the sale deeds dated 10[th] April1981 were without consideration. Therefore, the District Court decreedGthe suit by granting joint possession by setting aside the sale deeds dated10[th]April 1981. However, the prayer for compensation in respect of thetube well was rejected.

7. The respondents filed separate second appeals before the HighCourt which have been allowed by the impugned Judgment and order.HThe High Court upheld the finding of the District Court that Sudarshan Kumar failed to adduce evidence to prove that he remitted money fromforeign country to the appellant. Therefore, the High Court held that theappellant and Sudarshan Kumar were the joint owners of the suitproperties. The High Court held that the power of attorney was valid.The High Court further held that the suits for declaration of invalidity ofthe sale deeds were barred by limitation as the said prayers were belatedlyincorporated on 23[rd] November 1985.The High Court held that the saleconsideration mentioned in the sale deeds executed on 10th April 1981of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,875/- respectively was not exorbitant and,therefore, the amounts were not out of reach of the sons of SudarshanKumar and wife of Sudarshan Kumar. As the High Court held theappellant to be the owner of half share in the suit properties and as thepower of attorney was held to be valid, by the impugned Judgment andorder, it directed Sudarshan Kumar to pay the share of the appellant inthe consideration shown under the sale deeds dated 10[th] April 1981 with12% interest from the date of execution of the sale deeds. The saidJudgment and order has been impugned in these appeals.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT

8. Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, the learned Senior Counsel appearingfor the appellant submitted that even the High Court accepted that therewas no evidence adduced to show that the purchasers under the saledeeds dated 10[th] April 1981 had paid consideration to Sudarshan Kumar.He submitted that finding of the High Court that the considerationamounts were not out of reach of the purchasers is without any basis asit was not the case of the Sudarshan Kumar that his wife and minor sonshad any source of income at the relevant time.

9. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that even in theunamended plaints, there were specific assertions made that the saledeeds were null and void as the same were without consideration. Hepointed out that the unamended plaints contained a specific contentionthat the transactions of sale were sham transactions. It was specificallypleaded that the market value of the suit properties was more thanRs.30,000/- and there was no occasion to sell the suit properties at theprice shown in the sale deeds. He pointed out that it was pleaded in theunamended plaints that the minor sons of Sudarshan Kumar and hiswife had no source of earning. He submitted that as the sale deeds werewithout consideration, the same were void. He pointed out that the suitfor injunction was based on the title pleaded by the appellant as a joint AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aowner of the suit properties and therefore, the appellant continues to bethe owner of his share in the suit properties as the sale deeds are voidand sham. He urged that it was not necessary to amend the plaint and toseek a specific declaration regarding the invalidity of the power ofattorney and sale deeds. He pointed out that the High Court has committeda manifest error while recording a finding on bar of limitation. He invitedBour attention to paragraph 28 of the impugned Judgment which proceedson the footing that the appellant had challenged the legality and validityof sale deeds dated 12[th] March 1976 and 19[th] October 1976. He urgedthat the specific challenge was two sale deeds dated 10[th] April 1981. Hesubmitted that the High Court has erroneously disturbed the decree passedCby the District Court.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

10. The learned Senior Counsel Shri Surjeet Singh representingthe respondents invited our attention to the letter dated 5[th] April 1980(Exhibit D3) addressed by the appellant to Sudarshan Kumar. He pointedDout that in the said letter, the appellant accepted that the suit lands werepurchased out of the amounts remitted by Sudarshan Kumar and in fact,the appellant agreed to transfer the suit properties in the name ofSudarshan Kumar. He would, therefore, submit that the appellant has noright, title and interest in the suit properties. He submitted that in theEsuits filed in May 1983, the appellant did not pray for any declarationregarding the sale deeds and the power of attorney. He pointed out thatonly in November 1985, the plaint was amended to incorporate the prayersfor declaration as regards the power of attorney dated 28[th]March 1980and the sale deeds dated 10[th] April 1981. He would, therefore, submitthat the prayers for declaration were barred by limitation. The learnedFSenior Counsel submitted that without getting a declaration regardingthe invalidity or nullity of sale deeds, the appellant cannot get any relief.He submitted that the appellant did not discharge initial burden on him bystepping into witness box. He would, therefore, submit that no interferenceis called for with the impugned Judgment and order.G

11. After the judgment in these appeals was reserved on11[th] November 2021, the respondents have filed written submissions on16[th] November 2021 contending that the issue whether the purchasersunder the sale deeds were the bonafide purchasers was redundant. Heurged that the contention that the constituted attorney of Sudarshan KumarHwas not a competent witness was not raised by the appellant.

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND REASONS

12. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions.The case made out by the respondents in their written statement wasthat Sudarshan Kumar, who was employed abroad, remitted large amountsto the appellant, his younger brother, who was unemployed at that time.The case of the respondents was that Sudarshan Kumar paid the entireconsideration for acquiring the suit properties under the sale deeds of1976. The contention of the respondents is that instead of purchasingsuit properties only in the name of Sudarshan Kumar, the appellantincorporated his name in the sale deeds along with Sudarshan Kumar. Itis an admitted position that the said Sudarshan Kumar did not step intothe witness box. Moreover, there is a finding recorded by the DistrictCourt that no evidence was adduced by Sudarshan Kumar to prove thatcertain amounts were transmitted by him from a foreign country to theappellant. This finding has not been disturbed by the High Court. Themodified decree passed by the High Court by the impugned Judgmentand order proceeds on the basis of the finding that the appellant andSudarshan Kumar were the joint owners of the suit properties asSudarshan Kumar failed to establish his claim that he was the sole ownerof the suit properties. The respondents have not chosen to challenge theimpugned Judgment and order and therefore, the finding that the appellantand Sudarshan Kumar were the joint owners of the suit properties hasbecome final. Hence, reliance placed by the respondents on the letter atExhibit D3 will not help them.

13. A copy of the unamended plaint in one of the two suits isplaced on record along with the counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 of theunamended plaint, there is a specific pleading that both the sale deeds of10[th] April 1981 were null and void as the same were withoutconsideration. In the plaint, it is specifically pleaded that suit propertieswhich were worth more than Rs.30,000/- were shown to have been soldat a throwaway price. The prayer for injunction was made in theunamended plaint on the basis of the title claimed by the appellant as ajoint owner of the suit properties along with Sudarshan Kumar.

14. Admittedly, there is no evidence adduced on record bySudarshan Kumar that his minor sons had any source of income at therelevant time and that they paid him consideration as mentioned in thesale deed. Similarly, no evidence was adduced to show that SudarshanKumar’s wife had any source of income and that she paid consideration A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amentioned in the sale deed. An issue was specifically framed by theTrial Court on the validity of the sale deeds. There is a specific findingrecorded by the District Court that there was no evidence adduced toshow that Sudarshan Kumar’s wife and minor children paid considerationas shown in the sale deeds. In fact, before the District Court, it waspleaded that Sudarshan Kumar’s wife had brought some money fromBher parents. The District Court in paragraph 11 of the judgment held thatno evidence was adduced to prove the said contention. Therefore, thereis a categorical finding recorded in the same paragraph by the DistrictCourt that Sudarshan Kumar, by taking advantage of the power ofattorney, transferred the suit lands to his own minor sons and his wifeCwithout any consideration. The High Court has not disturbed the findingrecorded by the District Court regarding the failure of the respondentsto adduce evidence regarding the payment of consideration under thesale deeds dated 10[th] April 1981. The High Court in paragraph 29 merelyobserved that the sale consideration of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.6,875/- wasnot exorbitant and was not out of reach of Sudarshan Kumar’s sons andDwife. Perhaps, the High Court has ignored that it was considering a caseof sale deeds of the year 1981 and that the purchasers under one of twosale deeds were minor sons of Sudarshan Kumar and it was not evenpleaded that they had any source of income. The same is the case withthe sale deed executed by Sudarshan Kumar in favour of his wife. Thus,Eundisputed factual position is that the respondents failed to adduce anyevidence to prove that the minor sons had any source of income and thatthey had paid the consideration payable under the sale deed. They didnot adduce any evidence to show that Sudarshan Kumar’s wife wasearning anything and that she had actually paid the consideration asmentioned in the sale deed.F15. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short“the TP Act”) reads thus:

“54. “Sale” defined.—”Sale” is a transfer of ownership inexchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-Gpromised.

Sale how made.—Such transfer, in the case of tangibleimmoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees andupwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing,can be made only by a registered instrument.

H

In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value lessthan one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by aregistered instrument or by delivery of the property.

Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place whenthe seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, inpossession of the property.

Contract for sale.—A contract for the sale of immoveableproperty is a contract that a sale of such property shall take placeon terms settled between the parties.

It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge onsuch property.”

Hence, a sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. Theprice may be payable in future. It may be partly paid and theremaining part can be made payable in future. The payment ofprice is an essential part of a sale covered by section 54 of the TPAct. If a sale deed in respect of an immovable property is executedwithout payment of price and if it does not provide for the paymentof price at a future date, it is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. Itis of no legal effect. Therefore, such a sale will be void. It will noteffect the transfer of the immovable property.

16. Now, coming back to the case in hand, both the sale deedsrecord that the consideration has been paid. That is the specific case ofthe respondents. It is the specific case made out in the plaints as originallyfiled that the sale deeds are void as the same are without consideration.It is pleaded that the same are sham as the purchasers who were minorsons and wife of Sudarshan Kumar had no earning capacity. No evidencewas adduced by Sudarshan Kumar about the payment of the pricementioned in the sale deeds as well as the earning capacity at the relevanttime of his wife and minor sons. Hence, the sale deeds will have to beheld as void being executed without consideration. Hence, the sale deedsdid not affect in any manner one half share of the appellant in the suitproperties. In fact, such a transaction made by Sudarshan Kumar ofselling the suit properties on the basis of the power of attorney of theappellant to his own wife and minor sons is a sham transaction. Thus,the sale deeds of 10[th] April 1981 will not confer any right, title and intereston Sudarshan Kumar’s wife and children as the sale deeds will have tobe ignored being void. It was not necessary for the appellant to specifically A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aclaim a declaration as regards the sale deeds by way of amendment tothe plaint. The reason being that there were specific pleadings in theplaints as originally filed that the sale deeds were void. A documentwhich is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as thesaid plea can be set up and proved even in collateral proceedings.

BHence, the issue of bar of limitation of the prayers for declarationincorporated by way of an amendment does not arise at all. The additionalsubmissions made by the respondents on 16[th]November 2021 have norelevance at all.

17. As no title was transferred under the said sale deeds, theCappellant continues to have undivided half share in the suit properties.That is how the District Court passed the decree holding that the appellantis entitled to joint possession of the suit properties along with SudarshanKumar. Therefore, for the reasons recorded above, by setting aside theimpugned Judgment and order of the High Court, the decree passed bythe District Court deserves to be restored.D

18. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned Judgmentof the High Court is set aside and common judgment and order dated21[st] May, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ropar, Punjab inCivil Appeal bearing No.31/256/23.07.1986 and Civil Appeal bearingNo.34/257 /23.07.1986 is here by restored.

E

19. There will be no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals allowed.

F

G

H