Anoop Singh vs Shisha Singh

Rakesh Garg, J.—This is plaintiff''s second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration as well as appeal were dismissed.

As per the averments, appellant-Anoop Singh (since deceased and now represented by LRs) leased out the suit land to the defendant-respondent who is his real brother from Kharif 1996 to Rabi 2003 for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- per year. Defendant-respondent paid the lease money till Rabi 2002, however, he failed to make the payment for the last year, despite repeated requests and in February, 2003 refused to pay the lease money of Rs. 40,000/- and informed the appellant that he had no concern with the land in question as respondent was having registered gift deed dated 26.11.1996 executed by the appellant in his favour. On enquiry, appellant came to know that defendant has got executed the alleged gift deed dated 26.11.1996 by playing fraud upon him. Thereafter, appellant obtained copies of the revenue record and came to know that defendant-respondent has played fraud upon him by converting lease deed into gift deed in his favour without his consent. Despite convening many Panchayats, respondent refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff-appellant and thus, necessity arose to file the instant suit for challenging the gift deed dated 26.11.1996, being illegal and void.

The suit was contested by the respondent raising various preliminary objections. It was admitted that appellant was owner of agricultural land measuring 33 kanals 7 marlas and had left the village after disposal of his entire immovable property and transferred his entire estate in favour of different persons including the respondent. Taking of suit land on lease by the respondent was denied. It was further stated that gift deed was legally and executed by the appellant and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.

No replication was filed by the appellant to the averments made in the written statement.

After taking evidence and hearing both the sides, trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the appellant whereas issues No. 2 to 6 were decided against the respondent being not pressed. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2011.

Still not satisfied, plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below submitting that following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration of this Court:-

i) Whether the alleged gift deed Ex. D1 is valid document in view of Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act?

ii) Whether the Ex. D1 alleged gift deed is nothing but a sham transaction where the payment of consideration is involved on the basis of documents Ex. D2, D3 and D4 i.e. two agreements to sell and one receipt of total consideration?

iii) Whether the approach of the learned Courts below is erroneous, by not considering the admissions made by the respondent/defendant in the written statement regarding the consideration paid by him to the appellant?

iv) Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are perverse, erroneous and misreading of evidence?

v) Whether grave and manifest injustice has been done to the appellant?

However, on 13.02.2012, this Court after noticing the contentions raised and considering the facts established on record passed the following order:-

Both the parties are real brothers. From the judgments of the Courts below, it appears that defendant-respondent purchased the suit land from the plaintiff and gave the entire consideration, but to save stamp-duty, instead of getting sale deed, the defendant got executed gift-deed from the plaintiff regarding the suit land. The plaintiff-appellant, however, alleged that the gift deed was obtained by fraud in lieu of lease-deed. Said version of the plaintiff-appellant is patently untenable.

However, since the parties are real brothers, without going into the merits of either party, let notice be issued to defendant-respondent to explore the possibility of amicable settlement, particularly on payment of some more money by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Notice of motion for 21.05.2012.

On 5th December, 2012, the case was referred to Lok Adalat by passing the following order:

Counsel for the respondent, having sought instructions, states that the respondent has no objection if the case is referred to Mediation and Conciliation Center/Daily Lok Adalat functioning in this Court. Accordingly, as requested by counsel for the appellant and not objected to by counsel for the respondent and since both the parties are real brothers, the case is referred to Daily Lok Adalat functioning in this Court. Parties to appear there on 17.12.2012.

Report from Daily Lok Adalat be awaited for 25.03.2013.

However, the appeal was returned by the Lok Adalat vide order dated 17.12.2012 observing that efforts has been made to effect to effect compromise between the parties but the same has failed. Though learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to raise an argument on merits of this appeal, however, could not wriggle out from the observations of this Court as made on 13.02.2012 with regard to the merits of the case. Moreover, the gift deed in question is registered document which was executed on 23.11.1996 and was registered on 26.11.1996. The aforesaid gift deed could have been challenged within three years of its registration. The appellant was well aware about the execution of gift deed but has failed to challenge the same within the period of limitation.

Not only this, though appellant has alleged fraud yet the same could not be proved. Even appellant has not denied his thumb impression on the gift deed Ex. D1.

Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding in favour of the defendant-respondent. There is overwhelming evidence to support the aforesaid findings and in view thereof, it cannot be said that the findings are perverse in any manner.

Thus, no substantial questions of law, as raised, arise in this appeal.

Dismissed.