Forged sale deed
Legal Associate
(Querist) 29 August 2012
This query is : Resolved
Hi all,
There's a sale deed that has been executed for one of the property on the basis of misrepresentation and now a suit has been filed in regard to the cancellation of the same, however, the property still continues in the possession of the Plaintiff i.e. the person who was cheated / duped to sign the alleged sale deed.
I am looking for some of the latest SC judgements in the favor of the plaintiff. Any suggestions would be highly appreciated.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 29 August 2012
search indian kanoon website for judegements .
ajay sethi
(Expert) 29 August 2012
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs Mohinder Singh And Anr. on 4 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: (2007) 4 PLR 99
Author: S K Mittal
Bench: S K Mittal
JUDGMENT
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of four Regular Second Appeals bearing R.S.A. Nos. 2280, 2281, 2282 and 2283 of 2006. These appeals are arising from four different suits filed by both the parties pertaining to the same property claiming cross relief against each other.
2. In this case. Harbhajan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the defendant') sold 56 kanals of land being a co-sharer in the joint land to Mohinder Singh vide registered sale deed dated 3.11.2003 for a consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 34,00,000/- was paid by means of bank drafts and cheques which stood credited to the account of the defendant and the remaining amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid to the defendant in cash before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed. The physical possession of 56 kanals of land, which was with defendant Harbhajan Singh under an arrangement with other co-sharers, was delivered to Mohinder Singh. Surjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the second defendant') was the co-sharer in the joint khewat. However, defendant Harbhajan Singh sold 56 kanals of land to the extent of his half share in the khewat. Undisputedly, the sale by Harbhajan Singh was not beyond his share in the joint khewat. After the sale, a mutation was also sanctioned in favour of plaintiff Mohinder Singh.
3. After the sale and sanction of the mutation, disputes arose between the parties with regard to the execution of the sale deed as well as possession of the suit land, as a result of which, the following four suits were filed by both the parties:
(a)Civil Suit No. 953 of 2003 for permanent injunction was filed by Surjit Singh against Mohinder Singh vendee and his father Harbhajan Singh to the effect-that he is in possession of the land in dispute measuring 56 kanals under a registered 'Pattanama' dated 13.10.1998. Therefore, Mohinder Singh and Harbhajan Singh be restrained from interfering in his possession and further from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land.
(b) Civil Suit No. 440 of 2004 for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by Harbhajan Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur against Mohinder Singh claiming that they are in actual physical and cultivating possession of the suit land being owners and the sale deed dated 3.11.2003 and the mutation are the result of fraud, forgery misrepresentation and without consideration and the same are illegal, null and void and not binding on their rights.
(c) Civil Suit No. 929 of 2003 for declaration filed by Mohinder Singh against Harbhajan Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur to the effect that writing dated 8.11.2003, which was got signed from him in the Police Station by exercise of coercion, undue influence, use of force extortion is null and void and not binding on his right, with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the said writing.
(d) Civil Suit No. 491 of 2005 for permanent injunction was filed by Mohinder Singh against Harbhajan Singh and his son Surjit Singh restraining them from forcibly dispossessing him from the suit land.
4. Though ail the four suits were tried in the same court, but were decided vide separate judgments. The suits filed by Surjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur were dismissed by the trial court and the suits filed by Mohinder Singh against Harbhajan Singh and his son Surjit Singh, and against Harbhajan Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur, were decreed. The four appeals filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court by Surjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh and Surinder Kaur have also been dismissed by the first Appellate Court. Against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below in these four suits, the instant four Regular Second Appeals have been filed.
5. In nutshell, both the courts below dismissed the suits of Surjit Singh, Harbhajan Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur and decreed the suits of Mohinder Singh against these persons while recording the following findings of facts:
(i) Both the courts below have held that the sale deed (Ex. Pt) was duly executed by Harbhajan Singh in favour of Mohinder Singh vide which he transferred 56 kanals of land of his share in the joint khewat for a consideration of Rs. 42,00,000/-. The execution of the sale deed as well as the passing of the consideration has been duly proved by the plaintiffs witness along with endorsement (Ex. P.W. 1/A) i.e. P.W. 1 -Mohinder Singh, P.W. 2 - Amrik Singh, P.W. 3 - Gurmail Chand, Lamberdar, P.W. 4-Dharminder Kumar, P.W. 5 - Parshotam Lal, Deed Writer, P.W. 6 - Ravish Bhushan, Computer Operator and P.W.-7 Baldev Singh Saini, Draftsman. It has also been held that the consideration of Rs. 42 lacs was paid to the vendor Harbhajan Singh. Out of this amount, 34 lacs were paid through bank drafts and cheques, which were deposited in the account of Harbhajan Singh and as per the evidence available on the record, the said amount has also been withdrawn by him and his wife. It was further found that the remaining amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs was paid by the vendee to the vendor Harbhajan Singh before the Sub-Registrar, who has made an endorsement to this effect. The Sub Registrar has also appeared in the witness box. He was examined by defendant Mohinder Singh in Civil Suit No. 491 of 2005. In his statement, he has stated that the amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs was paid by the vendee Mohinder Singh to the vendor Harbhajan Singh in his presence.
It has been further held by both the courts below that the stand taken by Harbhajan Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur in their suit that the said sale deed was the result of fraud and misrepresentation as their signatures and thumb impression were obtained on the blank non-judicial stamp papers and later on the sale deed was forged without making any payment, was found to be not proved by them.
Regarding possession of the land in dispute, it was held that on execution of the sale deed, the physical possession of the suit land (56 kanals) was delivered by vendor Harbhajan Singh to vendee Mohinder Singh. It has been held that even PW4-Gurmail Chand produced by Surjit Singh admitted in cross-examination that prior to the sale Harbhajan Singh was in possession of the suit land and at the time of sale, he had handed over the possession of the suit land to the vendee Mohinder Singh. The said witness further stated that after the sale, Mohinder Singh is in possession of the suit land. The said witness was the attesting witness of the sale deed also. It has also been found that though the land in dispute was sold by Harbhajan Singh from the joint khewat but in an arrangement, Harbhajan Singh was in exclusive possession of 56 kanals of land which he sold to Mohinder Singh and delivered possession of the same to him at the time of execution of the sale deed.
It has been further held that on the basis of the said sale deed, the mutation was also sanctioned and the appeals filed against the same by the vendor and his son were also dismissed.
Regarding the possession claimed by appellant Surjit Singh on the basis of the Pattanama dated 13.10.1998, it has been held that the said Pattanama is a fabricated document, which was allegedly executed by vendor Harbhajan Singh in favour of his son in collusion so as to defeat the rights of one Jaswinder Singh, who at earlier point of time filed a suit against Harbhajan Singh for specific performance of an agreement. It has been further held by both the courts below on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence led by the parties that the said Pattanama was never acted upon and Surjit Singh never came in possession of the suit land under the said Pattanama in the revenue record. In this regard, reference was made to the jamabandi for the year 1998-99 (Ex. P4) where there is no such entry in the name of Surjit Singh and the land was shown in joint possession of the parties. While recording this finding, the courts below have also relied upon the suits filed by Surjit Singh against his father Harbhajan Singh and the aforesaid Jaswinder Singh on 25.11.1998 on the basis of his possession. Even in that suit, he did not mention that his father had executed a Pattanama in his favour and handed over the possession to him. It has been found that the said Pattanama was a paper transaction and the same was created by Surjit Singh in connivance with his father Harbhajan Singh just to play fraud with intending buyers. Thus, on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties, both the courts below have come to the conclusion that Surjit Singh never remained in possession of the suit land, which was in possession of Harbhajan Singh prior to the sale and on sale; the possession of the same was delivered to the vendee Mohinder Singh.
(iii) Regarding the writing dated 1.11.2003, according to which Mohinder Singh had agreed to re-transfer the land in favour of Harbhajan Singh after receiving back the sale consideration, it has been held that the same was got executed by Harbhajan Singh and his son in Police Station by exercising coercion and undue influence on Mohinder Singh and the same was held to be illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of Mohinder Singh. It was found as a fact that Mohinder Singh was kept confined in Police Station on November 7 and 8, 2003 and his signatures were obtained on the writing which was scribed by A.S.I. Sukhdev Singh. A finding of fact has been recorded by both the Courts below that the said writing was got forcibly signed from Mohinder Singh by A.S.I. Sukhdev Singh in Police Station and the same is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the parties.
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that both the courts below have erred in law as well as facts while recording the finding that at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 3.11.2003, Harbhajan Singh was in possession of the suit land. He further submitted that Harbhajan Singh executed a Pattanama/lease deed dated 13.10.1998 in favour of his son for a consideration and handed over possession of the suit land to him. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below that Harbhajan Singh was in possession of the suit land at the time of the sale deed and the same was delivered to Mohinder Singh on execution of the sale deed is illegal and contrary to the evidence available on the record. While referring to the judgment of the Supreme court in Yudhister v. Ashok Kumar (1987-1) 91 P.L.R. 11 and a judgment of this Court in Jagir Singh v. Jagwant Singh (2002-2) 131 P.L.R. 199, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that mere recital in the sale deed about the transfer of possession, is not conclusive and the alleged reference of giving of possession in the sale deed was mere a delivery of symbolic possession and not physical possession to the vendee. Therefore, from the sale deed, it cannot be inferred that the possession was delivered by Harbhajan Singh to vendee Mohinder Singh,
7. I do not find substance in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The case set up by appellant Surjit Singh is that he is co-owner in possession of the property in dispute. He also claimed possession of the property in dispute under the Pattanama dated 19.10.1998. In the revenue record, the possession of Surjit Singh is not reflected on the suit land on the basis of the said Pattanama. Subsequent to the alleged Pattanama, the appellant himself filed a suit against his father and one Jaswinder Singh and in the said suit, he never claimed possession of the suit land on the basis of the said Pattanama though the alleged Pattanama was in existence at that time. In addition to these proved facts, both the courts below have relied upon the statement of PW4-Gur-mail Chand (witness examined by Surjit Singh), who in his statement has categorically stated that at the time of sale of the land in dispute, Harbhajan Singh was in possession of the suit land on execution of the sale deed, he had delivered possession of the same to vendee Mohinder Singh. In this regard, both the courts below have discussed in detail in Civil Suit No. 953 of 2003 filed by Surjit Singh for permanent injunction. I do not find any illegality in the said finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. The said finding of fact has been recorded after appreciation of the evidence available on the record. The judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant are not applicable and relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. The learned Counsel further submitted that a co-sharer in joint possession of the joint land cannot sell his share and deliver possession of the land of his share without getting the land partitioned. Therefore, he submitted that the delivery of possession by Harbhajan Singh to Mohinder Singh cannot be inferred to be legal. I do not find any substance in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is well settled law as has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup 1981 P.L.J. 204 that a co-sharer in the joint land has a right to sell his share without getting the land partitioned. It is also well settled that he can deliver possession of the portion of the joint land to his vendee if he is in exclusive possession of the same. However, the sale made by any co-sharer by way of specific number will be deemed to be the sale of his share and any sale made beyond his share will also be confined to the extent of his share in the joint land. In this case, it has come in evidence that before the sale, in an arrangement, Harbhajan Singh was in exclusive possession of 56 kanals of land and at the time of the sale deed, he delivered possession of the same to vendee Mohinder Singh. Undisputedly, Harbhajan Singh was having share to the extent of 56 kanals in the joint land and the sale made by him was not beyond his share. It has been found by both the courts below that the said sale deed was duly executed by Harbdhajan Singh on receiving the consideration of Rs. 42 lacs. After execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession, the mutation of the sale deed was also sanctioned. The appeal filed against sanctioning of the mutation was also dismissed. Thus, it has also been found by both the courts below that no fraud was played at the time of execution of the sale deed, The stand of Harbhajan Singh and his wife is that the signatures of Harbhajan Singh were obtained on blank papers, was found to be false as the sale deed was executed in the office of Sub Registrar by Harbhajan Singh. It is pertinent to mention that now every sale deed is being registered in the office of Sub Registrar through computers with the photographs of the vendor, vendee as well as the attesting witness. The payment of entire consideration has been duly proved by vendee Mohinder Singh. In view of these findings of facts recorded by both the courts below, I do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
9. In the last, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after execution of the sale desd, the vendee Mohinder Singh himself executed a writing dated 8.11.2003 and agreed to re-transfer the suit land in favour of Harbhajan Singh after receiving back the sale consideration, has been duly proved by examination of its scribe and its witness, therefore, the courts below have erred in law as well as on facts while declaring the said writing being result of coercion and undue influence.
10. I have gone through the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 929 of 2003 in which Mohinder Singh has challenged the said writing. Admittedly, the said writing was got scribed by A.S.I. Sukhdev Singh in the Police Station. It has also come on record that on November 7 and 8, 2003, Mohinder Singh was kept confined by the police in the police Station and at that time the said writing was got signed from him. No explanation has come on record why the said writing was got scribed by the A.S.I. in the Police Station and why not from a regular Deed Writer, particularly when the said writing was written on stamp papers. When A.S.I. Sukhdev Singh appeared in the witnesses box, he stated that no compromise was effected in his presence. He could not explain why he had scribed the said writing. On the other hand, the vendee has specifically stated that his signatures were obtained on the said writing in the Police Station under threat and duress when he was kept in illegal confinement. He submitted that immediately after two days, he filed the suit challenging the said writing. Both the courts below have believed the version and evidence of vendee Mohinder Singh and came to the conclusion that the writing (EX.D1) was the result of coercion and undue influence and the same was found to be illegal, null and void. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact recorded by both the courts below.
11. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below.
No substantial question of law has been either raised or is involved in these appeals. Hence, all the four appeals are dismissed.
Legal Associate
(Querist) 29 August 2012
thanks for your prompt reply sir, however I am firstly looking for the apex court judgments and secondly, this judgment does not favor me as I need judgments supporting the Plaintiff as the there was no intention of selling the said property to the defendant and the defendant got the alleged sale deed executed by misrepresenting the plaintiff.
Also the property from existence till date remains in the possession of the Plaintiff and it is only the Plaintiff that is taking care of the suit property.
Guest
(Expert) 29 August 2012
Only merits of the case, but not the judgments in different cases help much. Unless effective proof of misrepresentation is producedmone of the SC judgments can prove to be helpful.
Anyway, it is your own prerogative what manner of presentation you prefer.
