FIRST APPEAL 4176 of 2009 on 3 July 1961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No.4176 of 2009 (O & M)Date of Decision: 08.09.2010.

Ajit Singh and others

.……Appellants

Versus

Union of India and others ……Respondents

Coram:-HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.Present:Mr. Mohd. Yousuf , Advocate for the appellants.

L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

CM No.12628-C of 2009

Allowed as prayed for.

CM No.12629-C of 2009

For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 15days in refiling the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal.

Plaintiffs Ajit Singh, his son and wife have filed the instantsecond appeal having failed in both the Courts below.

The plaintiffs alleged that suit land was allotted to SantaSingh and Bhagat Singh (predecessors of defendant Nos.2 to 19) inlieu of their land left in Pakistan, but the said allotment was cancelledon 03.07.1961 on the ground that the said allottees were holding landin Pakistan as mortgagees and not as owners. The said cancellationwas upheld under the Displaced Persons (Compensation andRehabilitation) Act. After cancellation of allotment of the suit land to Santa Singh and Bhagat Singh, the suit land was allotted bydefendant No.1-Union of India to Pritam Kaur, who bequeathed it toher husband's younger brother Bagicha Singh and accordinglyBagicha Singh became owner of the suit land. He sold the same tothe plaintiffs vide three sale deeds dated 16.09.1981 and three moresale deeds dated 23.09.1981, each for Rs.20,000/- i.e for totalconsideration for Rs.1,20,000/-. Accordingly, plaintiffs are owners inpossession of the suit land. However, defendants No.2 to 19 claimthat Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and decree dated06.09.1994 has declared defendant Nos.2 to 19 to be owners of thesuit land. However, said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is notbinding on the plaintiffs as they or their predecessors were not partyto the said litigation. The plaintiffs also claimed to be bona fidepurchasers of the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs soughtdeclaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land. Theyalso claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants frominterfering in their possession over the suit land. In the alternative,mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to allot some otherland to the plaintiffs in lieu of suit land, has also been claimed.

Defendants inter alia pleaded that they have been held tobe owners of the suit land by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgmentdated 06.09.1994 and the instant suit is barred by res judicata.Plaint allegations were denied. It was alleged that Bagicha Singhhad no right, title or interest in the suit land and the alleged saledeeds by him in favour of plaintiffs are illegal, null and void. Variousother pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar videjudgment and decree dated 28.09.2005 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs also stands dismissed bylearned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment anddecree dated 13.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs havepreferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants andperused the case file.

Defendant Nos.2 to 19 successfully challenged thecancellation of the allotment of suit land to their predecessors SantaSingh and Bhagat Singh. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgmentdated 06.09.1994 upheld the claim of defendant Nos.2 to 19 anddeclared them to be owners of the suit land. Consequently, plaintiffscannot be said to be owners of the suit land. Possession of the suitland has also been delivered to defendant Nos.2 to 19 on 27.09.2000pursuant to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand,plaintiffs moved application before Settlement Commissioner whichhas been dismissed by Chief Settlement Commissioner vide orderdated 27.04.1999. Since cancellation of suit land in favour of BhagatSingh and Santa Singh was set aside, defendant Nos.2 to 19 beingtheir successorsare owners of the suit land as declared by Hon'bleSupreme Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs cannot be held to beowners thereof.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended thatappellants/plaintiffs are bona fide purchasers of the suit land.However, this plea has also been negatived by both the Courts below. Concurrent finding by the Courts below in this regard doesnot suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrantinterference in second appeal. On the contrary, the plaintiffspurchased the suit land during pendency of the litigation which hadbeen initiated by defendant Nos.2 to 19. Plaintiffs and defendantNos.2 to 19 belong to the same village which is a small village and itcannot be said that plaintiffs were not aware of the said litigation.Consequently, plaintiffs cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers ofthe suit land. It may be added that plaintiffs before purchasing thesuit land did not make appropriate inquiry regarding title thereof.Plaintiff No.1 stated in his cross-examination that before purchasingthe suit land, he had only seen the boundaries thereof and did notverify anything else. It is thus manifest that plaintiffs cannot betermed to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. On the otherhand, plaintiffs purchased the suit land during pendency of thelitigation and for this reason as well, they cannot be held to be bonafide purchasers of the suit land.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instantsecond appeal. No question of law, much less substantial questionof law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Theappeal is accordingly dismissed in limine.

08.09.2010.A. Kaundal

( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE