23

ANNEXURE P-1

IN THE COURT OF SH.H.S.GILL,PCS, ADD.CIVIL JUDGE

(SR.DIVN)MUKTSAR.

Civil Suit No.13 of 16.01.2003.

R.T NO. 48 of 23.09.2005

Date of decision :04.04.2006.

Darshan Kumar Kumar son of Roshan Lal son of Kanhyia Lal

resident of Kanhyia Lal Street, Bank Road, Muktsar.

......Plaintiff

Versus

1. Darshan Singh son of Surjit Singh Son of Chanan Singh,

2. Balwant Kaur widow of Surjit Singh Son of Chanan Singh,

3. Harpreet Singh Son of Surjit Singh Son of Chanan Singh,

all residents of Village Rupana, Tehsil- Muktsar.

4. S.B.I State Bank of India, Village Rupana, Tehsil-

Muktsar.

5. P.A.D Bank (Punjab Agriculture Development

Bank).Kotkapura Road Muktsar.

6. Punjab Land Mortgage Bank, Muktsar.

......Defendants

SUIT FOR POSSESSION

Present:

Mr. I.M. Lal Verma, Adv. Counsel for the plaintiff.

Mr. B.S Sidhu, Adv. Counsel for defendant No.1

Mr. A.K Girdhar, Adv. Counsel for defendants No.5 to 6.

Mr. S.C Girdhar, Adv. Counsel for defendant No.4.

Defendants No.2 and 3 ex-parte.

JUDGMENT:
 24

1. Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for

possession through specific performance of an agreement dated

05.09.1998 between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 relating

to sale of land measuring 37 Kanals 03 Marlas. As fully

detailed in the head note of the plaint, situated in Village

Rupana for Rs.8,12,660/- after deducting Rs.4,88,000/- as

detailed in head note of plaint or in the alternative suit for

recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- double of the earnest money of Rs.4

Lacs.

2. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that defendants No.1 to 3

are co-sharers in equal shares of land measuring 131 Kanals

Nehri bearing Mustil No.28 Killa Nos. 7/3,14,16/2,17,24,25

Mustil No. 29 Killa Nos. 1/1,10,11,12/1,19,20,21,22,23 Mustil

No. 46 Killa Nos. 4,5,6/1,7/1,15/2,16/1,25/2of Khewat No.850

Khatauni No. 1370 situated in Village Rupana, Tehsil, Muktsar,

Hadbast 61. The share of Darshan Singh defendant No.1 comes 43

Kanals 14& 1/3marlas. Defendants No.1 was in possession of

land measuring 37 Kanals 03 marlas i.e., suit land with some

other land also as co-sharer in possession. On 05.09.1998 the

defendant entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff

to sell the suit land at the rate of Rs.1.75,000/- per Killa

and received Rs. 4 lacs from the plaintiff as earnest money in

the presence of the witnesses and the typist of the agreement.

After receiving the said amount, he put his own signatures and

acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4 lacs with his own handwriting

and promised to get the sale deed executed and registered till

21.01.2000. he further promised that in case he fails to do so

he will be bound to pay the plaintiff Rs. Eight Lacs double of

the amount. It was further mentioned in the agreement that the

parties will also be entitled to get the sale deed executed

through the court and the vendee will bear the expenses of

stamp and registration. It is further pleaded that defendant

 25

No.1 did not execute the sale deed till 21.01.2000 as per

terms of the agreement. On 21.01.2000 the plaintiff went and

appeared before the Sub Registrar Muktsar with balance sale

money and expenses of the costs of execution and registration

of sale deed as per terms of agreement dated 05.09.1998 and

gave application to the Sub Registrar, Muktsar in the morning

and waited defendant No.1 till 4pm. But defendant No.1 Darshan

Singh did not come to the office of Sub Registrar, Muktsar.

Who marked the plaintiff present on the application with his

endorsement and returned the application to the plaintiff. The

defendant did not execute the sale deed nor showed his

willingness to execute and register the same. The plaintiff

has always been ready and is still ready to perform his part

of the contract and to get the sale deed executed and

registered according to the terms of the agreement, but

defendant No.1 is still making lame excuses for not getting

the sale deed executed and registered and is trying to avoid

the execution of the sale deed. Defendant No.1 became malafide

from the day when the plaintiff appeared before Sub Registrar

Muktsar on 21.01.2000 showing his willingness to get the sale

deed registered, defendant No.1 got made equitable mortgage of

land measuring 10 Kanals 16 Marlas as in the head note of

plaint. On 20.09.2022 to defendant No.5 for Rs.80,000/- from

his mother showing that this part of the land is of her share

in spite of the fact that this land is and was in the

possession of defendant No.1 at the time of writing of the

agreement dated 05.09.19198. Beside this defendant no.1 made

equitable mortgage of land measuring 8 Kanals 16 marlas

bearing No. 45 Killa Nos. 12(2-10) and 19(6-6-) for

Rs.50,000/- with P.L.M Bank, Muktsar/ defendant no.2 was not

authorized to make equitable mortgage of land measuring 10

Kanals 16 Marlas for Rs.80,000/- and defendant No.5 was not

 26

entitled to get equitable mortgage on this land and to advance

Rs.80,000/- even if other co-sharer have given any consent,

then they were not justified to give consent to such equitable

mortgage in the presence of agreement dated 05,09.1998. now

the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale deed executed and

registered as per conditions of agreement dated 05.09.1998 and

for getting possession of the suit land with other rights

through specific performance for Rs.8,12,660/- after plaint.

Hence this suit.

3. On notice, defendants 1,4,5 and appeared through counsel and

filed their separate written statements. Defendants No.2&3 did

not appear despite service and were proceeded against ex-

parte.

4. Defendant no.1 , in his written statement took preliminary

objection that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, that

the suit is not maintainable in the present form and the suit

is not properly stamped for the purposes of court fee and

jurisdiction as the value of the suit land Rs.5 lacs per acre.

On merits, it is admitted that the defendant has 1/3rd share

as per revenue record, defendant Darshan Singh is not in

possession of the suit land as alleged. It is denied that the

defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with

the plaintiff for Rs. 1,75,000/- per killa or received Rs.4

lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff. The alleged

agreement is a forged and fictitious document. It is further

pleaded that the alleged transfer and mortgage are with

bonafide intention. The plaintiff has filed the present suit

with a malafide intention as he is commission agent and the

defendant used to sell his crops with the plaintiff and there

is dispute relating to account of defendant No. and due to

that reason, he prepared a forged agreement. Rest all the

averments made in the plaint are denied to be incorrect.

 27

Defendant No.4, in its separate written statement took

preliminary objections that it was pleaded malafidely and the

suit is not maintainable against it. On merits, all the main

averments made in the plaint are denied to be incorrect.

Defendants No.5 and 6 in their joint written statement

took preliminary objections that the plaintiff has no right to

file the suit against them, that before filing the suit, the

plaintiff has not got served notice under section 79 of the

Punjab Cooperative Societies Act upon the defendant, as such,

the suit is liable to be dismissed and this court has got no

jurisdiction to try the suit on merits. It is admitted that

the defendant no.1 has 1/3 rd share as per revenue record. Rest

all the averments made in the plaint are denied to be

incorrect. At the end, defendants no.1,4,5 and 6 have prayed

that the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed with costs.

5. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of

defendant no.1 controverting all the main assertions made in

the written statement and reiterating those of the plaint.

From the pleading of the parties, the following issues were

framed:-

1. Whether on 5.09.98 defendant no. 1 Darshan Singh

agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff and

executed an agreement to sell: in his favour? OPP.

2. Whether plaintiff has been and is still ready and

willing to perform his part of the agreement? OPP.

3. Whether defendant failed to perform his part of the

said agreement? OPP•

4. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties?

OPD.

5. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present

form? OPD.
 28

6. Whether plaintiff has not paid proper court fee?

OPD.

7. Whether defendant no.4 has been impleaded

malafidely? 0PD.4

8. Whether suit is bad for non-issuance of notice

under S.79 of Pb. cooperative Societies Act? OPD.

9. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain

and try the present suit? OPD.

10. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the specific

performance of the agreement or the alternative

relief? OPP.

11. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of the

suit property? OPP.

12. Relief,

6. Thereafter, the parties were asked to lead their evidence in

support of their respective claims. In order to prove his

claim, plaintiff Darshan Kumar, himself, stepped into the

witness box as PW3 and he tendered into evidence his duly

sworn affidavit Ex.Pw3/A and has also examined Balwinder Singh

Clerk, PADB. as PW1 , Vijay Kumar Stamp vendor , as PW2, Ravi

Kumar, attesting witness of the agreement as PW4, who tendered

into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex,Pw4/A, Subhash

Chander as PW-5, who tendered into evidence his duly sworn

affidavit Ex.PW5/A, Bhola Ram, Accountant as PW6, Vikram Raj

Singh Chauhan, Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert, as PW7

,who has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.

PW7/a and then the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff closed his

evidence

7. In order to rebut this evidence of the plaintiff defendant

Darshan Singh, himself, stepped into the witness box as DW-2

and has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex, DB

and also examined Kulwant Singh Sr. clerk, a8 DW-1, who

 29

tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. D-A.

Balwant Kaur wife of Surjit Singh is DW-3, who has tendered

into evidence her duly sworn affidavit Ex. DC and then the

defendants closed their evidence.

8. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have also

gone through the file, very carefully. My findings, on the

above issues, are as under:

ISSUES NO . 1, 2, 3, 10 and 11

9. All these issues are interconnected ,so, these issues will be

decided together in order to avoid repetition in discussion

and evidence, In order to prove these issues, plaintiff

Darshan Kumar, himself, stepped into the witnesses box as PW3

and he tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex,PW-

3/A wherein he has reiterated the contents of the plaint by

deposing on oath that defendant No.1 Darshan Singh and his

family members are personally known to him and they are co-

sharers in the land measuring 131 kanals situated at village

Rupana as detailed in the head note of the plaint. Defendant

Darshan Singh 1s having his share to the extent of 43 kanals

14&1/3 marlas. He further stated that defend ant Darshan Singh

was in possession of 37 kanals 03 marlas of land along with

some other land as co-sharer in possession in the above said

land. Plaintiff further stated that defendant Darshan Singh

entered into a written agreement dated 5.9.1998 with him to

sell his land measuring 37 kanals 03 marlas @ Rs-1,75,000/-

per acre and received Rs. Four lacs from him as earnest money

in the presence of witnesses Subhash Chander and Ravi Kumar.

He further stated that after receiving advance money from him,

defendant Darshan Singh put his signatures on agreement Ex.P-

1, whereby he acknowledged the receipt of Rs Four lacs from

him as earnest money with his own handwriting and promise to

 30

get the sale deed executed and registered till 21.1.2000 with

further promised that if he does not fulfill his part of the

contract and does not execute register the sale deed till

21.1.2000, then he will be bound to pay Rs. Eight lacs, i.e.

double of the amount of Rs. Four lacs as advance money. He

further stated that the defendant undertook that the plaintiff

will be entitled to get the specific performance of the

agreement through the court and it was also agreed that the

plaintiff will bear the expenses of stamp and registration. It

was further agreed that the Sale deed will be got registered

after giving all proofs of ownership in the revenue papers.

Plaintiff further stated that it was agreed that the vendee

will also be entitled to get the share of khewat written in

the sale deed and then take the specific possession of the

land measuring 37 kanals 03 marla as written in the agreement.

Other conditions are also written in the agreement Plaintiff

identified his signatures on the agreement EX.P-1 so placed on

the file. Plaintiff further stated that Darshan Singh

defendant did not execute the sale deed till 21.1.2000 as per

terms of the agreement, even repeated requests made by him,

Then a date was fixed as 21.1.2000 to get the sale deed

executed He went and appeared before the Sub Registrar,

Muktsar with balance sale consideration along with expenses of

the execution and registration fee etc., but defendant Darshan

Singh did not turn up, then he moved an application to Sub

Registrar, Muktsar Ex.P-3 in the first hours of the court and

awaited for defendant Darshan Singh till 4-00 p.m., but he did

not come to the office of sub registrar, Muktsar. Then Sub

Registrar, Muktsar marked his presence on the application with

his endorsement and returned the application to him, Plaintiff

recognized identified the endorsement made by sub Registrar on

the application Ex.P-3 at Mark-A• He further stated that the

 31

defendant did not execute the sale deed nor showed his

willingness to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement

dated 5.9.98, but he has already been ready and to willing and

is still ready and willing/perform his part of the agreement

and to get the sale deed executed and registered according to

the term of the agreement dated 05.09.1998 Ex.p-1, but

defendant Darshan Singh was never ready and he is still not

ready to perform his part of the contract and is not ready to

execute and register the sale deed. He is trying to avoid the

execution of the sale deed. He further stated that defendant

Darshan Singh mortgaged certain portion of his land in favour

of defendants No. 4,5,&6 on various dates after execution of

the agreement Land, in question, was in possession of

defendant Darshan Singh at the time of execution of agreement

dated 5,9.1998 Ex.P-1, but despite this fact defend ant

Darshan Singh mortgaged his land in favour of defendants no.

4, 5 and 6. Plaintiff further stated that he sent a notice

through his counsel sh. I.M. Lal Verma, advocate on 30.12.2002

to the defendant, which was received by him. Plaintiff proved

copy of original notice Ex.P-2 which had been sent to the

defendant He further stated that the defendant gave reply to

this notice through his counsel Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate,

Plaintiff further stated that the market value of the land, in

dispute on 5.9.98 was Rs.1,75,000/- per acre not at as, Five

lacs per acre as alleged by defendant No.1, further stated

that defendant Darshan Singh is and was in possession of suit

land measuring 37 kanals 03 marlas as detailed in the head

note of the plaint and still he is ready to take land

measuring 37 kanal 03 marlas (77/262 share of 131 kanals) as

detailed in the head note of the plaint, Plaintiff further

stated that defendant Darshan Singh used to sell his crop

through the commission agency of M/s Shagan Lal Darshan Kumar,

 32

Commission Agent New Grain Market, Muktsar and he is one of

the partners of the firm, There was no dispute of accounts

between the firm and defend ant Darshan Singh ,rather

defendant Darshan Singh was in arrear of huge amount and he

sold his crops on 10.5.2001 at commission agency of M/S Shagan

Lal Darshan Kumar t1l1 31.03.2002.The defendant had to Pay

Rs.4,98,365/- to the above said firm without interest which

are still outstanding against defendant Darshan Singh• He

further stated that agreement dated 05.09.1998 EX.P1 is

genuine and for valuable consideration and this agreement was

executed with free will and with consent of both the parties

in the presence of the witnesses and typist. Plaintiff further

stated that he is entitled to the decree of possession through

specific performance of land measuring 37 kanal 03 marlas of

specific numbers given in the plaint. He further stated that

an amount of Rs Four lacs has been given to defendant Darshan

Singh as advance money on 5.9.98. He further stated that he is

ready to get the sale deed executed with regard to the land

measuring 37 kanals 03 marlas after paying the remaining sale

consideration to defendant No,1.He further stated that he is

also a partner of M/S Roshan Lal Prem Nath, Grain Merchants

and Commission Agents, Malout and he had taken Rs Four lacs on

5.9.98 from M/s Roshan Lal Prem Nath above said firm being

partner of the firm from his account. Plaintiff proved the

attested copy of his account Ex.P-4 so placed on the file, He

further stated that both the firms of Muktsar and Malout are

income tax assesses and bahies of both the firms are

maintained regularly in the regular course of business . He

proved agreement EX.P-1 and entry in the Register of the Stamp

Vendor Ex.P1/A, application moved before sub-Registrar for

marking his presence dated 21.1.2000 EX.P-3, certified copy of

his account maintained by M/S Roshan Lal Prem Nath Ex.P-4 •He
 33

has specifically deposed that he is ready and willing to

perform his part of the agreement.

10.In order to create further confidence in his claim, the

plaintiff has examined PW-4 Ravi Kumar and PW5 Subhash

Chander, who have fully proved that they signed the agreement

Ex.P-1 as marginal witnesses and the defendant obtained Rs

Four lacs as earnest money from the plaintiff and the

defendant agreed to sell his land measuring 37 kanal 03 marlas

situated in the revenue limits of Village Rupana. PW4 Ravi

Kumar stated that this agreement was written in the court

complex on 05.09.1998, He identified his signatures on the

same. He further stated that he and Subhash Chander signed as

marginal witnesses and this agreement was typed at the

instance of the defendant by the typist. PW5 Subhash Chander

has also deposed on oath on the similar lines. PW1 Balwinder

singh Clerk, PADB. Muktsar produced the summoned record and he

has stated on oath that as per jamabandi EX.P/A, the defendant

mortgaged his land measuring 8 kanals 10 marlas in favour of

Primary Agricultural Development Bank, Muktsar for a sum of Rs

50,000/. PW2 Vijay Kumar has stated on Oath that he had sold

the stamp paper on which agreement Ex.P-1 was written. He made

an entry in his duly maintained register. PW2 Vijay Kumar has

proved copy of entry Ex.P1/A and endorsement EX.P1/B so placed

on the f1le. PW6 Bhola Ram has stated that the plaintiff is

partner of the firm M/S Roshan Lal, Prem Nath. On 05.09.1998

Plaintiff Darshan Kumar at had taken Rs. Four lacs from the

firm from his account and this amount was given to a farmer.

He further stated that entry in the cash book/rokar, has been

made in this regard.PW7 Vikram Raj Singh Chauhan Handwriting

and Fingerprints Expert has tendered into evidence his

affidavit Ex.Pw7/A and has categorically stated on oath that

 34

the signatures on the agreement Ex.P-1 to p-4 correspondence

with the standard/specimen signatures of Darshan Singh

defendant on the Wakalatnama dt. 10.02.2003 Marked as S-1,

written statement and verification dated 07.3.2003 Marked as

S2 and S3. He has specifically deposed that the specimen and

standard signatures of Darshan Singh defendant have been

written by one and the sane person. PW-7 has proved his report

EX.PW 1, photographs Ex. PW 7/2 to PW 7/15, along-with their

negatives Ex.PW 7/16 to PW 7/31 so placed on the file.

11.In order to rebut this evidence of the plaintiff, Darshan

Singh defendant, himself, stepped into the witness box as DW2

and has tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.DB

wherein he has stated that he never entered into an agreement

to sell his land measuring 37 kanals 03 marlas with the

plaintiff nor he received any earnest money of Rs. Four lacs

from the plaintiff. Agreement is false and forged document,

DW3 Balwant Kaur in her affidavit Ex. DC, stated on oath that

the suit land is joint and she is in possession of the same,

the defendant has no right to alienate specific khasra

numbers. DW-1 Kulwant Singh, senior clerk, the Muktsar Primary

Cop. Development Bank, Br. Muktsar, has stated on oath that

the defendant obtained loans from P.A.D.B. on 20.5,2002 and

20.6.2002 and undertook to return the same by way of

installments. This is the entire evidence led by both the

parties in support of their respective claims.

12.After hearing the rival contentions raged by the Ld. counsel

for the parties and going through the evidence oral as well as

documentary so placed on the file, I am of the considered

opinion that the plaintiff has successfully proved that

defendant No.1 entered into agreement EX.P-1 dated 05.09.1998

to alienate his land measuring 37 kanals 03 marlas in favour

 35

of plaintiff, and the defendant obtained Re. Four lacs as

earnest money PW4 and PW5 being marginal witnesses have fully

proved that defendant No.1 signed the agreement in their

presence and the defendant obtained Rs Four lacs as earnest

money.PW6 Bhola Ram has proved that on 05.09.1998 the

plaintiff obtained a Rs. Four lacs from the firm M/S Roshan

Lal Prem Nath Firm made the payment to the defendant and in

this regard, entry has been made in the Rokar Bahi. PW7 Vikram

Raj Singh Chauhan, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert, has

proved signature of the defendant on agreement Ex-P-1. Apart

from this evidence, the plaintiff has placed on file copy of

jamabandi Ex.P-5 which goes to show that the defendant was

owner of 37 kanals 03 marlas of land for which he entered into

an agreement to sell the game with the plaintiff. PW1

Balwinder Singh, Clerk, has proved that the defendant

mortgaged his land with Agricultural Development Bank, Muktsar

and PW2 Vijay Kumar has proved that the defendant purchased

stamp paper from him, on which agreement Ex.P-1 was written.

He proved entry in his register as Ex.P-W2/A-Plaintiff has

also placed on fi1e application Ex.P-3 dated 21.01.2000 in

order to show that he appeared before Sub Registrar for

getting the sale deed executed, but the defendant did not turn

up on that day in the office of Sub Registrar and on the

application, it is clearly mentioned by the Sub Registrar that

the defendant did not turn up to get the sale deed executed in

favour of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff has also placed on file

copy of his account Ex.P-4 dated 31.3.99, which goes to show

that he was having Rs 6,91,767-12 in the firm M/S Roshan Lal

Prem Nath and he is partner of this firm. No cogent and

convincing evidence has been produced by the defendant in

order to prove that he did not sign the agreement Ex.P-1.

Neither any Handwriting Expert nor any other cogent and

 36

convincing evidence has been produced by the defendant that he

never entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with the

plaintiff nor received a sum of Rs. Four lacs as earnest money

from him. Mere denial made by defendant Darshan Singh is not

sufficient to discard the claim of the plaintiff, DW-1 and DW-

3 did not support the defendant that the defendant never

agreed to sell his land in favour of the plaintiff and he

never obtained any amount of Rs Four lacs as earnest money

from the plaintiff, so, on the perusal of oral as well as

documentary evidence so placed on file, I am of the considered

opinion that on 05.09.1998 defendant No.1 Darshan Singh agreed

to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff and executed

an agreement to sell the same in favour of the plaintiff.

Plaintiff has been and is still ready and willing to perform

his part of the agreement and Darshan Singh defendant has

failed to perform his part of the contract and the plaintiff

is entitled for the specific performance of the agreement and

he is also entitled for possession of the suit property.

Accordingly, Issues No,1, 2, 3, 10 and 11 are, therefore,

decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUES NO. 4,5,6,7,8,6&9

13.The onus to prove all these issues was upon the defendants.

The defendants have not led any evidence to prove these issues

nor at the time of arguments the Ld. counsel for the

defendants has pressed these issues. So, all these issues are

decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.12(RELIEF)

14.As a result of my findings on the above issues, the suit

filed by the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby ordered

to be decreed with costs for possession through specific

 37

performance of agreement to sell dated 05.09.1998 relating to

the land measuring 37 kanal 03 marlas situated in the revenue

limits of Village Rupana, as detailed in the head-note of the

plaint. Plaintiff is also entitled to possession of the suit

land on the basis of agreement to sell Ex.P-1 after payment of

balance amount of Rs. 02,74,660/- to the defendant No.1. The

defendant, namely, Darshan Singh, is directed to get the sale

deed executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff within

a period of two months from the date of passing of judgment

and decree on payment of remaining sale consideration by the

plaintiff to the defendant.

Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to the record

room.

Pronounced in open court.

04.04.2006

Sd/-

Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dv.)

Muktsar
 38

Decree sheet

In the court of Shri Harinder Singh Gill Pcs Addl. Civil Judge

(SD) Muktsar.

Civil suit No. 13 of 16-1-2003

RT No. 48 0f 23-9-2005

Date of decision:- 04-04-2006

Darshan Kumar son of Roshan Lal son of Kanhyia Lal r/o Kanhyia

Lal Street Bank road Muktsar.

....Plaintiff

Versus

1. Darshan Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh

2. Balwant Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh

3. Harprit Singh son of surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh all

residents of Rupana Teh. Muktsar.

4. SBI state Bank of India Rupana, Tehsil Muktsar.

5. P.A.D. Bank (Punjab Agricultural Development Bank)

Kotkapura Road Muktsar.

6. Punjab Land Mortgage Bank Muktsar.

..Defendants

Suit for possession through specific performance of an

agreement dated 5-9-98 between plaintiff and defendant

No.1 relating to sale of land measuring 37 kanals 3

marlas Mustil No, 28 killa Nos. 16/2(3-6) (7(8-0)

24(8-0) 25(7-1) Mustil No. 46 Killa Nos. 15/2 (5-8)

16/1(5-8) khamat No. 850 khatauni &No. 1370 according

to jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 Hadbast 61 with

 39

all right attached with the land situated in village

Rupana. Tehsil and District Muktsar for Rupees 812660

eight lack twelve thousand six hundred and sixty after

deducting Rupees 488000 Four lacs eighty eight

thousand as mentioned below:-

i) Rupees Four lacs already paid as advance money by

plaintiff to defandant.No,1 Darshan Singh on 5-9-

98 vide agreement of sale.

ii) Rupee 8000 eight thousand of equitable mortgage

made by Darshan Singh defendant No 1, on land

measuring 11 kanals 6 marlas Must1l No. 28 Killa

Nos. 16/2(3-6) 17(8-0) in favour of SBI defendant

No.4.

iii) Rupees e1ghty thousand (80000/- ) of equitable

mortgage got made by Darshan Singh defend ant

No.1 through his mother Balwant Kaur defendant

No. 2 on 20.09.2002 On land mustill N0.46 killa

No.15/2 (5-8) 16/1 (5-8) land measuring 10 kanals

- 16 Marlas in favour of PAD Bank Muktsar

defendant No.5 only to injure the interest of the

plaintiff got vide agreement dated 05-09-1998

thus paying balance amount Of Rs. 324660/- Three

lacs twenty-four thousand six hundred and sixty

only to defendant No. 1 Darshan Singh Rs. 8000/-

to defendant No. 4, Rs. 80000/- to defendant No.5

or depositing the whole balance amount of Rs.

412660/-. In this Hon. court for defendants 1-4

and 5 according to the proportion mentioned

above, and then the plaintiff is entitled to get

the sale deed executed and registered from

defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff and then

 40

plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the

land 37 kanals 3 marlas mentioned, above

or

Suit for possession by specific performance of land

37 Kanals 3 Marlas 77/262 share of 23 kita, 131

kanals mentioned in whole of the khewat (salam)

No.850 khataun1 No. 370 Jamabandi 1999-2000 with

all rights attached with the land situated in

village Rupana Tehsil Muktsar for Rupees 812660

eight lacs twelve thousand six hundred and sixty

after deducting 538000 Rupees (Rs. Five lacs Thirty

Eight Thousand)

iv) After deducting Rupees 4,88,000 Four lacs eighty

thousand as mentioned above.

v) Rupee 50,000 Fifty thousand money of equitable

mortgage made by defendant No.1 on 20.09.2002 in

favour of defendant No. 6 , Thus paying balance of

Rs.2,74,660 two lacs seventy four thousand six

hundred and sixty only to defendant No.1 as per

agreement and also deducting the amount of

equitable mortgages

or

In the alternative suit for the recovery of

Rupees eight lacs 8,00,000 double the earnest

money of 4 lacs as mentioned in the agreement

dated 05.09.1998 by sale of above mentioned. land

37K-3M

On the basis of other oral and documentary evidence of

every kind.
 41

.....

plaint presented on: 15-1-03

Value for the purpose of court fee Rs.10,300/-

Value for the purpose of Jurisdiction Rs. 812660/-

This suit coming on this day for final disposal before me

shri H.S. Gill PCS Addl. Civil Judge (SD) Muktsar in the

presence of Shr1 I.M. Lal Verma, adv, counsel for the plaintiff

and Shri B.S. Sidhu Adv counsel for defendant No.1' and Shri

A.K. Girdhar adv counsel for the defendants No.5 and 6 And Shri

S.C. Girdhar Adv counsel for defendant No.4 and defendant No. 2

and 3 ex-parte and it is ordered that suit filed by the

plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby ordered to be decreed

with costs for possession through specific performance of

agreement a to sell dated 05.09.1998 relating to the 1 and

measuring 37 kanals 3 marlas situated in the revenue limits of

village. Rupana as detailed in the head mote of the plaint,

plaintiff is also entitled to possession of the suit land on the

basis of agreement to sell Ex.P-1 after payment of balance

amount of Rs. 2,74,660/- to the defendant No.1. The defendant,

namely DarshanS1ngh is directed to get the sale deed executed

and registered in favour of the plaintiff within a period of two

months from the date of passing of judgment and decree on

payment of remaining sale consideration by the plaintiff to the

defendant.

Cost of the suit,

Plaintiff(s) Defendant (s)

1.Stamp for plaint Rs. 10300-00 --

 42

2.Stamp for power Rs. 1-25 1-25

3.Stamp for process fee Rs. 12-00 - -

4.Diet of witness Rs. - - - -

5.Counsel fee Rs. - - - -

6.Misc. Rs. 23-00 2-00

------------------------------

Total 10336-25 3-25

Given under my hand and the seal of the court

this the 4th day of April 2006.

Addl. Civil Judge (SD)

Muktsar.
 43

ANNEXURE P-2

IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA, PCS, Addl CIVIL

JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION), SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB.

Execution No. RT-81

Date of Institution. 15.06.2006/20.04.2011

Date of Decision: 23.12.2011

Darshan Kumar son of Roshan Lal son of Kanhyia Lal, resident of

kanhyia Lal Street Bank Road, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

...Decree Holder

Versus

1. Darshan Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh.

2. Balwant Kaur widow of Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh.

3. Harpreet Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh, all

residents of village Rupana Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar

Sahib.

4. State Bank ofindia Rupana, Tehsil Sri Muktsar Sahlb. T

5. P.A.D. Bank (Punjab Agricultural Development Bank)

Kotkapura Road, Shri Muktsar Sahib.

6. Punjab Land Mortgage Bank Shri Muktsar Sahib.

...Judgment Debtors

Execution application

Present: Shri I.M.L Verma Advocate counsel for the Decree

Holder,

Shri G.S. Brar Advocate counsel for J.Ds No.1 to 3

Shri V.K Sehgal Advocate counsel for J.D. No.4.

Shri A.K. Girdhar Advocate counsel for J.D, No.5.

Order

1. This order of mine shall dispose of objections filed by J.D

No.1 who has submitted that vide impugned Judgment and

decree the order was passed for specific numbers of land

measuring 37 Kanals 3 Marlas whereas J.D. No.1 is not in

 44

exclusive possession of above said land measuring 37 Kanals

3 Marlas. Therefore, the decree is not executable. The

Judgment and Decree have been challenged in the appellate

Court and has not become final. The Judgment and decree is

passed against the law and facts and therefore is not

executable.

2. Notice was served and it was submitted that executing court

cannot go behind the decree and the Judgment and decree is

very specific for sale of specific khasra numbers of 37

kanals 3 marlas. The numbers are mentioned in the Judgment

and decree. Therefore, sale deed cannot be executed of

77/252 share out of total land which is in joint Khata and

prayed for dismissal of the objections and also prayed that

draft sale deed, which is already on record be approved and

Local commissioner be appointed for execution of the sale

deed of specific khasra numbers of land measuring 37 kanals

3 marlas musteel No.28 Killa No.16/2(-6) 17(8-0) 24(8-0)

25(7-1) Mustel No. 46 Killa numebr 15/2(5-8) 16/1(5-8).

3. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/objector has contended

that law is well settled that a co-sharer, who is in

exclusive possession cannot deliver the exclusive

possession as it was held in Full Bench Judgment, cited as

Bharta Vs Ram Sarup 1981 P.L.J. (Full Bench Judgment) of

our own Hon'ble High Court where in it was specifically

held that even If the specific numbers are sold which are

not in possession of the vender, it will be deemed to be a

sale of his share and the extent of title is subject to

adjustment/variation at the time of partition. The

pronouncement is stated as under:-

 45

“It is evidence from the said propositions that when a

co-sharer is in possession exclusively of some portion

of the joint holding he is in possession thereof as a

co-sharer and is entitled to continue in its

possession if it is not more than his share till the

joint holdings is partitioned. It is also undisputed

that a vendor cannot sell any property with better

rights than he himself has. Conse1uently when a co-

sharer sells his share in the joint holding or any

portion thereof and puts the vendee into possession of

the land in his possession, what he transfers is his

right as co-sharer in the said land and the right to

remain in its exclusive possession till the joint

holding is partitioned amongst all the co-sharers. It

was on this basis that a Division Bench of the Lahore

High Court in Sukhdev Vs Parsi plaintiff and another,

A.I.R. 1940, Lahore 473 held that a co-sharer who is

in exclusive possession of any portion of a joint

khata can transfer that portion subject to adjustment

of the rights of the other co-sharers therein at the

time of partition and that other co-sharer's right

will be sufficiently safeguarded if they are granted a

decree by giving them a declaration that the

possession of the transferees in the lands in dispute

will be that of co-sharers subject to adjustment at

the time of partition.”

Therefore, the objections are sustainable. The same be

sustained. The execution application in the present shape

be dismissed.

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the D.H. has

contended that executing court is a very limited option to

 46

exercise, and it cannot go behind the decree and has

contended that as per pronouncement cited as Vasudev

Dhanjibhai Modi Vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman AIR 1970 S.C. page

1475 wherein Hon'ble Apex Court had held that

“A court executing a decree cannot go behind the

decree between the parties or their representatives;

it must take the decree according to its tenor and

cannot entertain any objection that the decree was

incorrect in law or on facts. Until it is set aside by

an appropriate proceedings in appeal or revision, a

decree even if it be erroneous is still binding

between the parties.

and has prayed that objections be dismissed and

execution application be allowed.

6. After hearing both learned counsel for the parties and

perusal of the record this court is of the opinion that as

far as pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court is

concerned, the same relates to a Judgment and decree

between the parties. In the present case, the other co-

sharers are not a party to the present suit and they are-in

joint possession and for getting specific Khasra numbers

the decree holder has not arrayed the other joint owners a

party in the present execution and in case a judgment and

decree in the present shape is executed, it will prejudice

the right of the other co-sharers. Moreover the judgment

and decree is at the most concerned that the execution of

the sale deed to preserve the title of the D.H. to the

extent the agreement was executed and not more, the

ultimate effect of the judgment and decree in its execution

would be that the D.H. shall be entitled to the ownership

equivalent to the title, which was convened through

 47

agreement to sell. Admittedly, the other co-sharers are in

possession, who cannot be dispossessed as they are not a

party to the present execution application or in the

Judgment and decree, which is sought to be executed. Hence

objections are sustainable. The draft sale deed be

corrected to the extent of conveying the title in favour of

D.H. to the extent of 77/262 share, which is equivalent to

37 kanals 3 marlas and during partition the D.H. can seek

the specific possession by arraying the other co-sharers a

party as well. The objections in terms of the order are

allowed. The execution application stands disposed of with

liberty to the D.H. to file corrected draft sale deed at

the appropriate time. File be consigned.

Pronounced:- (Rakesh Kumar Sharma)

December, 23, 2011 Add Civil Judge (Senior Division)

Sri Muktsar Sahib.

 48

ANNEXURE P-3

CR No.2584 of 2013 (O&M) {1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.2584 of 2013 (O&M)

Date of decision:28.11.2018

Darshan Kumar ... Petitioner

Vs.

Darshan Singh and others ... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

Present:- None for the petitioner.

Mr. Manav Bajaj, Advocate for

Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate
for the respondents.

AMIT RAWAL J.

The present revision petition is directed against the impugned

judgment and decree dated 12.02.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the

Additional District Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib and order dated 23.12.2011

(Annexure P-2) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sri

Muktsar Sahib.

The judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006 was passed in

favour of the petitioner-plaintiff, whereby, respondent no.1 was directed to

execute the sale deed of the suit land as per the terms and conditions of the

agreement to sell dated 05.09.1998. The aforementioned judgment and

decree is stated to have attained the finality.

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2022 19:52:32 :::
 49

CR No.2584 of 2013 (O&M) {2}

Since respondent no.1 did not comply with the directions of the

trial Court as per the judgment and decree, an execution application was

filed in which JD has filed the objections by objecting that he was not in

possession of the entire land measuring 37 kanals 3 marlas and therefore,

the decree had become un-executable. Even the appeal against the judgment

and decree of the trial Court, is pending adjudication.

The petitioner contested the aforementioned objections on the

premise that numbers mentioned in the judgment and decree were as per the

terms and conditions of the agreement to sell and therefore, sale deed qua

his share can always be executed and prayed for dismissal of the objections.

The objections were allowed, vide order dated 23.12.2011 and appeal was

also dismissed.

It has been stated in the revision petition that the land

measuring 37 kanals 3 marlas referred to musteel no.28 killa no.16/2(-6), 17

(8-0) 24(8-0) 25(7-1) musteel no.46 killa number 15/2(5-8) 16/1(5-8). The

Courts below have rendered the finding on the point that respondent no.1

was a co-sharer in the suit land to the extent of 77/262 share which was

equivalent to 37 kanals 3 marlas and even if, he was not in possession of

khasra number, symbolic possession could have been ordered. In such

circumstances, ratio decidendi culled out by the Full Bench of this Court in

Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup 1981 PLJ 204, wherein it has been held that co-

sharer is always competent to alienate his share, is squarely applicable. The

transferee can always get the right of ownership from the transferor to

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2022 19:52:32 :::
 50

CR No.2584 of 2013 (O&M) {3}

enforce the partition.

Per contra, Mr. Manav Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. Pawan Girdhar,

learned counsel for the respondents submitted that simpliciter suit for

possession is not only for specific performance of the agreement to sell but

for possession also as possession of all the co-sharers is joint. The specific

possession in the absence of partition, amongst the co-sharer cannot be

granted but the Court below has granted liberty to the petitioner to get the

numbers corrected and file the execution application thereafter, therefore,

no harm and prejudice would have been caused.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and

appraised the paper book.

The judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006 is not only for

execution of the sale deed but also for handing over the possession.

Concededly, respondent no.1 is also a share-holder of land measuring 37

kanals 3 marlas referred to musteel no.28 killa no.16/2(-6), 17(8-0) 24(8-0)

25(7-1) musteel no.46 killa number 15/2(5-8) 16/1(5-8) alongwith other co-

sharers. The sale deed, thus, in such circumstances, was required to be

corrected only by conveying the title in favour of the decree-holder to the

extent of his share but the possession cannot be granted in the absence of

partition. This is what has been held by the trial Court in the impugned

order. The operative part of the order dated 23.12.2011 reads thus:-

“Hence the objections are sustainable. The draft sale deed be

corrected and during the partition the D.H can seek the

specific possession by arraying the other co-sharers a party as

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2022 19:52:32 :::
 51

CR No.2584 of 2013 (O&M) {4}

well. The objections in terms of the order are allowed. The

execution application stands disposed of with liberty to the

D.H to file corrected draft sale deed at the appropriate time.

File be consigned.”

The plaintiff has not been able to controvert the aforementioned

pleadings by placing on record any cogent material to the story coined in the

objections is alien to the revenue record. Even otherwise, the petitioner-

plaintiff/decree holder has not been deprived of the ownership of the land.

The sale deed is confined only to the extent of 77/262 share and after

partition, liberty has been granted to take the possession.

No fault can be found with the aforementioned impugned

judgment and decree as well as order.

Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

(AMIT RAWAL)
JUDGE
November 28, 2018
savita

Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 18-12-2022 19:52:32 :::
 52

ANNEXURE P-4

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. ATUL KAMBOJ A.C.J.

(Sr.D) SRI MUKASAR SAHIB

CM 708/2019

Darshan Kumar 62 years son of Sh. Roshan Lal son of

Sh. Kanhayia Lal R/O Bank Road Sri Muktsar Sahib.

…...applicant / Decree Holder

VERSUS

M/s Darshan Singh Etc

Respondent/Judgment debtor

IN RE: EXECUTION 48/15.6.200GRT 81/20/04/20:1

decided on 23/12/2011

Application for allowing to file new

draft sale deed as per the order dated

23/12/2011 of Sh. Rakesh Sharma PCS ACJ

(S.D.) Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Sir,

The applicant respectfully submits application

as under:-

1. That the above titled execution proceeding was

filed by the applicant in this Hon’ble court and

the name was disposed off on 23/12/2011 with the

liberty to D.H. to file correct sale deed at the

appropriate time. Photocopy of order is attached

with.

2. That the applicant/preferred an appeal against

the order dated 23/12/2011 passed by Sh. Rakesh

Kumar Sharma PCS A.C.J.(Sr.D) Sri Muktsar Sahib

 53

which was dismissed by LD. Additional Distt.

Judge, Sri Muktsar Sahib on 12/02/2013. The

applicant filed civil revision 2584 of 2013 in

the Court of Punjab and Haryana High Court

Chandigarh against the order dated 12/02/2013

which was also dismissed on 28/11/2018.

Photocopy of order is attached with.

3. That the applicant is ready to file correct

draft sale deed.

4. The JD No 1 preferred an appeal against the

judgment and decree sheet of date 04/04/2006

passed by the additional Civil Judge Sri Muktsar

Sahib, which was affirmed by the Additional

Dist. Judge Sri Muktsar Sahib vide judgment &

decree sheet dated 19/08/2011 in the manner that

the sale deed may got executed in favour of the

applicant on the basis of agreement to sell

executed by the respondent no. 1 on favour of

the plaintiff / decree holder.

5. That the applicant had filed draft sale deed of

specific no of land measuring 37 kanal 13 marla

whereas The JD has taken the objection that the

land in question is not in the exclusive

possession of JD Darshan Singh so the decree

cannot be enforced regarding the specific no.

The Ld. Court has accepted the objections of JD

and execution was disposed of with the direction

to the applicant to file corrected draft sale

 54

deed. The draft sale deed be corrected to the

extent conveying the title in favour of the

applicant /DH to the extent of 77/262 share

which is equivalent to 37 kanal 03 marala and

during partition the DH can seek the specific

possession by arraying the other co-share a

party as well.

6. That the applicant had already deposited

Rs.2,74,660/- with this court Receipt is already

with the original file. z

7. That the JD had not preferred any appeal against

order dated 23/12/2011.

8. That as per current copy of jambandi JD is owner

of 107/393 share which comes 35 kanal 12 marala

and out of 35 kanal 12 marala JD had transferred

8 kanal in favour of his wife namely Rupinder

Kaur which is illegal and against the law. The

applicant is also entitled to get sale deed

registered in his favour of 35 kanal 12 marala

including the share which he transferred in

favour of his wife. The JD has obtained loan

from PADB Sri Muktsar Sahib amounting Rs

3,65,000/- and Rs 3,00,000 / - from SBOP NGM Sri

Muktsar Sahib which is also illegal and the

applicant is not bound for this loan. JD is

responsible for this loan amount and kindly be

directed him to deposit the same whereas at the

time of filing draft sale deed loan amount was

 55

1,38,000/- which the applicant was bound to pay

to the concerned banks. Now as JD Has raise loan

amounting Rs 6,65,000 from the banks against the

land in question which is illegal and if the

applicant have to deposit the same than kindly

refund the amount which is Rs 2,74,400/- which

is deposited by the applicant with the court.

The applicant reserve the right to recover

balance amount from the JD by way of separate

suit.

9. That the equity & ends of justice also requires

that court may kindly order to the corrected

draft sale deed through in appointing local

commissioner,

Hence it is prayed that in the interest of

justice and keeping in view the above facts and

circumstances after calling the above noted

original file the court may kindly order to the

applicant to file corrected draft sale deed as

per order dated 23/12/2011 measuring 35 Kanal 12

Marla as shown in the copy of jambandi for the

year 2014-2015 of revenue area of Rupana tehsil

and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Date: 07/05/2019

Submitted by

Darshan Kumar son of Sh. Roshan Lal

son of Sh Kanhyia Lal R/O Bank: Road

Sri Muktsar Sahib

 56
ANNEXURE P-5
57
58
59
 60

ANNEXURE P-6

RECEIPT

Ex. JD/1

08.10.2021

I am Darshan Kumar son of Roshan Lal son of Ghanhiya

Lal resident of Back Road Sri Muktsar Sahib Tehsil

and District Sri Muktsar Sahib. That I had to take an

amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Fifteen Lakhs) from

Darshan Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Channan

Singh resident of Rupana Tehsil and District Sri

Muktsar Sahib. That I have received Rs. 15,00,000/-

(Rs. Fifteen Lakh) from Darshan Singh son of Surjit

Singh son of Channan Singh. Now nothing is due from

Darshan Singh son of Surjit Singh son of Channan

Singh and this receipt is being executed with my own

free will.

Dated: 05-05-2019

Sd/- Darshan Kumar son of Roshan Lal

Sd/- Darshan Singh son of Surjit Singh

Witness

Sd/- Kewaljit Singh, son of Labh Singh, resident of

village Bannawala, Tehsil, District Fazilka.

Sd/- Gursahib Singh, son of Gurmeet Singh, resident

of Goneana Tehsil & District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

 61

ANNEXURE P-7

BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT OF SH. ATUL KAMBOJ A.C.J.

(Sr.D) SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB.

Darshan Kumar VERSUS Darshan Singh etc

IN RE: EXECUTION

Reply to objection

Sir,

That the applicant/ Decree Holder submit as under:-

Reply to the Preliminary objection.

1. That the contents of the Para no. 1 of the

Preliminary objection of the reply are wrong

and denied. The application is maintainable and

there is every chance of its success.

2. That the contents of the Para no. 2 of the

Preliminary objection of the reply are wrong

and denied. The application of the decree holder

is in the continuation of the previous execution

filed by the decree holder. Moreover, the appeal

filed by the J.Ds. was dismissed on 19/08/2011

and limitation also starts from the date of the

dismissal of the appeal. It is a settle law that

the doctrine of merger of operates as a

principal upon a judgment being rendered by the

 62

appellant court. Whether the appellant court

conform the decree of the trail court or reverse

the judgment, it is decree of the appellant

court which become executable.

3. That the contents of the Para no. 3 of the

Preliminary objection of the reply are wrong

and denied. Detail reply has been given in the

above noted Para.

4. That the contents of the Para no. 4 of the

Preliminary objection of the reply are correct

except that the decree holder did not comply

with the order passed by court of Sh. Rakesh

Kumar Sharam, PCS, A.C.J. (Sr-D) Sri Muktsar

Sahib. In the order the court has not fixed any

specific time. It is worth mentioning that the

execution application is pending since, it was

filed, it was never disposed of in any manner,

it is continuing and limitation was or is never

barred.

5. That the contents of the Para no. 5 of the

Preliminary objection of the reply are wrong

and denied. Detail reply has been given in the

above noted Para.

6. That the contents of the Para no. 6 of the

Preliminary objection of the reply are wrong and

 63

denied. That the applicant is residing in Dubai

for his business purpose and he visited India at

Chandigarh on 07/05/2019 and the receipt date

05/05/2019 is forged one. As the D. H. was never

present in India on that day he was Dubai. Photo

copy of the Passport is attached with for the

consideration for his court. The applicant

humbly request to this court to take criminal

action against the J.D. Darshan Singh. If the

contents of the receipt is read over, it shows

J.D. Darshan Singh had pay Rs. 15,00,000/ - to

applicant Darshan Kumar which was due to J.D.

Darshan Singh. There is no reference of the

Civil Suit which was decreed against the Darshan

Singh, the witness shown in the receipt does not

belongs to village Rupana or Sri Muktsar Sahib

neither it was written in the receipt, where it

was written and where money was allegedly paid.

So, it clearly shows that the receipt is forged

one. The applicant will file separate application

against the J.D. Darshan Singh under the

criminal law.

Reply to Objection of Merit.

1. That the contents of the Para no. 1 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct

 64

2. That the contents of the Para no. 2 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

3. That the contents of the Para no. 3 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

4. That the contents of the Para no. 4 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

5. That the contents of the Para no. 5 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

6. That the contents of the Para no. 6 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

7. That the contents of the Para no. 7 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

8. That the contents of the Para no. 8 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

9. That the contents of the Para no. 9 reply of the

application on merit wrong and denied the

contents of the application are correct.

That the contents of the prayer clause also

wrong and denied and the contents of the application

are correct. Hence, it is prayed that applicant may

 65

kindly be allowed to file fresh draft sale deed as

prayed in the prayer clause of the application.

Submitted by:-

Darshan Kumar

Decree Holder.

Verification:-

Verified the contents of the Para no. 1 to 6 of the

reply of the preliminary objection and the contents

of Para no. 1 to 9 of the Reply on Merits of the

reply of the objection are true and correct to the

best of my knowledge and belief and prayer is

believed to be correct.

Place: - Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Date:- 05.12.2019
 66
ANNEXURE P-8
 67
ANNEXURE P-9
68
 69
ANNEXURE P-10

CNR No.PBSM020007172019 CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar vs Darshan Singh

Present: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg, Advocate, counsel for the decree
holder
Judgment debtor exparte

The aforesaid titled execution has been filed by the decree

holder Darshan Kumar for getting executed the sale deed in his favour

qua land measuring 35 Kanal 12 marlas before the office of Joint Sub

Registrar, Lakhewali on the payment of ₹3,90,000/- and issued the

warrant of possession to put him in possession over the said land as per

the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2019. On the other hand in this

execution the judgment debtor Jaswinder Singh was proceeded against

exparte because of his refusal upon notice vide order dated 10.09.2021

passed by this court. Thereafter, in terms of this order the decree holder

has filed the draft sale deed. Moreover, balance sale consideration has also

been deposited by the decree holder. As such keeping in view of the

aforesaid facts and circumstances, Sh. Amandeep Singh, Reader of this

court is hereby appointed as a Local Commissioner to get executed the

sale deed on behalf of the judgment debtor Darshan Singh. The fee of the

Local Commissioner is assessed as ₹5,000/-. Report of draft sale deed

and deposit of the fee of Local Commissioner be awaited for 26.11.2021.

Dated: 20.10.2022 Raj Pal Rawl

ACJ (SD), Sri Muktsar Sahib
(UID No.PB0274)

Munish Kumar
 70
ANNEXURE P-11

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate proxy counsel for DH.

Sh. Ravinder Sandhu, Advocate proxy counsel for JD.

As per the report Reader of this Court the compliance has

been made and the sale deed has been executed as per the Orders of this
Court. Now, the case is adjourned to 17.01.2023 for awaiting the copy of
sale deed.

Another application in this present execution is also pending

to set aside the exparte. Copy of the same be supplied to the DH. Reply to
the same be filed on the date fixed.

As the sale deed had been already executed as per order of

this Court, now the JD is allowed to join the proceedings of present
execution from this stage subject to cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited in
the DLSA. Objections regarding sale deed, if any, be also filed on date
fixed.

Date of Order: 03.12.2022 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Riya Garg ACJ(SD)/SMS
UID NO . PB00274
 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027263

71
ANNEXURE P-12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

277 CR-6097-2022
Date of decision : 14.02.2023

Darshan Singh
... Petitioner
Versus

Darshan Kumar and others

.. Respondents

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

Present:- Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.C. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.

***

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining the

prayer in this petition only to the framing of an additional issue with regard to

maintainability of the execution.

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that without

prejudice to his rights, he is not objecting to the framing of an issue of

maintainability at this stage.

Heard.

In view of the above without making any observations on the

merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the Executing

Court to frame the issue with regard to maintainability of the execution. The

parties would be granted adequate opportunity to produce evidence in support

of their respective stands.

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)

February 14, 2023 JUDGE
sonia gugnani

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:027263

1 of 1
::: Downloaded on - 02-08-2023 19:13:30 :::
ANNEXURE P-13
72
 73
ANNEXURE P-14

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Proxy counsel for Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for
applicant.
Sh. M.S Sandhu Advocate for respondent.

No AW is present. On request file be put up for 05.04.2023

for Aws

Date of Order: 10.03.2023 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Gaurav Arora ACJ(SD)/SMS
UID NO . PB00274
 74
ANNEXURE P-15

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: None

File taken up today as I shall be on leave 05.04.2023 &

06.04.2023 and 04.04.2023 is holiday on account of Mahavir Jayanti.
Now, the case is adjourned for 21.04.2023 in terms of previous order.
Parties through counsel informed, accordingly.

Date of Order: 03.04.2023 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Gaurav Arora ACJ(SD)/SMS
UID NO . PB00274
 75
ANNEXURE P-16

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Proxy counsel for Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for
applicant.
Sh. M.S Sandhu Advocate for respondent.

No AW is present. On request or proxy counsel for applicant,

now file be put up for 02.05.2023 for Aws, Subject to last opportunity.

Date of Order: 21.04.2023 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Gaurav Arora Additional Civil Judge Senior Division
UID NO . PB00274
 76
ANNEXURE P-17

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for applicant.

Sh. M.S Sandhu Advocate for respondent.

Inadvertently in the last order due to clarical mistake of the

steno of this court the case was fixed for Aws whereas the case was fixed
for JDWs, subject to last opportunity and same is rectified.

Today No JDWs is present. On request, now the case is

adjourned for entire JDWs for 09.05.2023, last opportunity to continue.
No further opportunity shall be granted.

Date of Order: 02.05.2023 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Gaurav Arora Additional Civil Judge Senior Division
UID NO . PB00274
 77
ANNEXURE P-18
78
79
80
81
82
 83
ANNEXURE P-19

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM-67-2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for applicant.

Sh. M.S. Sandhu Advocate for respondent.

No JDWs is present despite granting two last opportunities as

per spirt of order of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court,
adjournment to request. This court does not deem it fit for granting
adjournment for JDW. Therefore, Evidence of JDWs are closed by order.
The learned counsel for JD moved an application for dismissing the
present execution. Copy supplied. Its reply be filed on 20.05.2023.

Date of Order: 09.05.2023 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Meenu ACJ(SD)
UID No.PB0274/SMS
 84

1
ANNEXURE P-20

CNR No.PBSM020007172019 CM/67/2019

Darshan Kumar vs Darshan Singh
Present: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for the applicant
Sh. M.S Sandhu, Advocate counsel for the respondent

Order

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and

learned counsel for the respondent and from the perusal of the file it is

clear that on the objections of the respondent/JD, two issues were framed

on 21.02.2023 by this court as per the order dated 14.02.2023 of the

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as under:-

1. Whether the execution is not maintainable?OPJD

2. Whether JD has discharged his liability as per decree?OPJD

but despite granting four fruitful opportunities including two

last opportunities and also as per order dated 06.05.2023, the last

opportunity was granted with the observation that no further opportunity

shall be granted to the JD to brought on file any evidence that how the

execution is not maintainable. As no evidence brought on file and

evidence of the JD was closed by order on 09.05.2023. Therefore the

objections regarding maintainability of the execution taken by the JD is

devoid of merit. Accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. On the other

hand, the DH has placed on file the copy of certificate of the DH issued

by the United Arab Emirates Federal Authority of Identity and Citizenship

mark-A and Ex.A1 supported the contention of learned counsel for the

DH that the DH entered in India on 14.05.2019 to 07.05.2019 and

17.01.2019 to 20.1.2019 on which alleged receipt dated 05.05.2019

alleged issued by the DH Darshan Kumar not proved that the same was
 85

issued by the DH Darshan Lal Mark-A1 is the attested affidavit of the DH

issued by the Consulate General of India, Dubai regarding his not present

on 05.05.2019. Therefore, the objections raised by the objector/

respondent/JD are dismissed.

Now, reply to the application for delaying the proceedings of

the execution of the JD. The JD also filed another application on dated

09.05.2023, for dismissing the present execution application due to non

compliance of the judgment and decree dated 04.04.2006. Reply to which

also filed by the DH today and copy supplied. Now, to come up on

03.07.2023 for consideration on that application. Long date is given due

to summer vacation.

Date of Order: 20.05.2023 (Raj Pal Rawl)

Gurpreet.Singh, EA ACJ(SD)/SMS
UID No.PB0274
 86

ANNEXURE P-21
87
 88

ANNEXURE P-22

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM-67-2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for applicant

Sh. M./S. Sandhu Advocate for respondent.

Todayan application for recalling the order dated 09.05.2023

filed by the JD. . From the perusal of file shows that it is clear that vide
order dated 09.05.2023 the evidence of JD was closed by order and after
that further order dated 20.05.2023 was passed vide which the issues of
the JD was disposed of. From the perusal of the file it is also clear that
regarding the decretal property sale deed has already been executed.
Therefore, the application regarding the order dated 09.05.2023 is not
entertain-able and dismissed without giving notice to the opposite party.

Today, Ld. Counsel for DH also moved an application for

seeking direction to Revenue Officials, Sri Muktsar Sahib to entry
regarding the sale deed No. 2022-23/53/01/3515 dated 02.12.2022,.
Report in this respect be called from Revenue Authority for 21.07.2023

Date of Order: 03.07.2023 ( Raj Pal Rawl)

Meenu ACJ(SD)/SMS
UID No.PB0274
 89

ANNEXURE P-23

CNR No: PBSM020007172019 CIS No: CM-67-2019

Darshan Kumar VS Darshan Singh etc.

Present: Sh. Rajinder Kumar Garg Advocate for applicant.

Shri M.S. Sandhu Advocate for respondent.

Ld. Counsel for applicant suffered statement that the

execution is partly satisfied and he withdraw the same and proceeding
can be intact and right to reserve file fresh. Registry clerk Gurdeep Singh
on behalf of Office of Tehsildar, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

In view of the statement suffered by counsel for applicant,

the present application is hereby dismissed as withdrawn and proceeding
of this case kept intact. File be consigned to the record room.

Date of Order:21.07.2023 ( Raj Pal Rawl)

Meenu ACJ(SD)/SMS
UID No.PB0274
 90

ANNEXURE P-6