19.08.2025 Pronounced on Amarjeet Kaur and Another Amarjeet Kaur and Another v. & Others Jeon Singh
Case Details
RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3618-1997 (O&M) RSA Reserved on: Reserved on: 18.08.2025 Pronounced on: 19.08.2025 Pronounced on Amarjeet Kaur and Another Amarjeet Kaur and Another .....Appellants VERSUS & Others Jeon Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs & Others Jeon Singh (Since Deceased) through LRs .....Respondents HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh Bhangu, Advocate for the appellants. Present: Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh Bhangu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Kanwalpreet Singh Bhangu, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate with Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate with Singhal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Aparna Singhal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. Ms. Aparna MANDEEP PANNU, J MANDEEP PANNU, J 1. The present Regular Second Appeal The present has been filed by Amarjeet Kaur Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Amarjeet Kaur and another, appellants/ appellants/defendants No. 5 and 6
Legal Reasoning
(hereinafter referred to as, ‘the defendants No. 5 and 6 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the appellants’), against the , against the judgment and decree passed by the judgment and decree dated 03.09.1997 passed by the learned lower A rned lower Appellate Court whereby the judgment and decree dated 20 .02.1992 ourt whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.02.1992 of the learned trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff of the learned trial C Singh was set ourt dismissing the suit of the plaintiff Jeon Singh was set llowed. aside and the appeal of the plaintiff was allowed. aside and the appeal of the plaintiff was a Facts of the Case Facts of the Case 2. Singh instituted a suit for declaration to the effect The plaintiff Jeon Singh instituted a suit for declaration to the effect Singh instituted a suit for declaration to the effect The plaintiff that he was the owner of the suit land and that the wrong entries in the revenue that he was the owner of the suit land and that the wrong entries in the revenue that he was the owner of the suit land and that the wrong entries in the revenue that he was the owner of the suit land and that the wrong entries in the revenue record were liable to be corrected. He also sought a declaration that the sale deed record were liable to be corrected. He also sought a declaration that the sale deed record were liable to be corrected. He also sought a declaration that the sale deed record were liable to be corrected. He also sought a declaration that the sale deed r of his sons, be rectified in his favour, along dated 9 June 1978, executed in favour of his sons, be rectified in his favour, along r of his sons, be rectified in his favour, along dated 9 June 1978, executed in favou with the consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction restraining with the consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction restraining with the consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction restraining with the consequential relief of possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or transferring the land. the defendants from alienating or transferring the land. the defendants from alienating or transferring the land. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -2- wner of the The plaintiff averred that Sadhu Ram, son of Jaimal Singh, was the owner of the The plaintiff averred that Sadhu Ram, son of Ja The plaintiff averred that Sadhu Ram, son of Ja suit property and had agreed to sell the land to him by executing three agreements suit property and had agreed to sell the land to him by executing three agreements suit property and had agreed to sell the land to him by executing three agreements suit property and had agreed to sell the land to him by executing three agreements to sell, on receipt of earnest money. It was pleaded that the sale deed dated 9 June to sell, on receipt of earnest money. It was pleaded that the sale deed dated 9 June to sell, on receipt of earnest money. It was pleaded that the sale deed dated 9 June to sell, on receipt of earnest money. It was pleaded that the sale deed dated 9 June 1978 was in fact executed by Sadhu Ram after receiving the balance sale 1978 was in fact executed by Sadhu Ram after receiving the balance sale 1978 was in fact executed by Sadhu Ram after receiving the balance sale 1978 was in fact executed by Sadhu Ram after receiving the balance sale ideration, which was wholly paid by the plaintiff. According to him, consideration, which was wholly paid by the plaintiff. According to him, ideration, which was wholly paid by the plaintiff. According to him, ideration, which was wholly paid by the plaintiff. According to him, defendants No. 1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh (since deceased), his sons, did not defendants No. 1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh (since deceased), his sons, did not defendants No. 1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh (since deceased), his sons, did not defendants No. 1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh (since deceased), his sons, did not contribute any part of the sale consideration and were merely holding the land as contribute any part of the sale consideration and were merely holding the land as contribute any part of the sale consideration and were merely holding the land as contribute any part of the sale consideration and were merely holding the land as for him. Since he had paid the entire sale trustees in fiduciary capacity for him. Since he had paid the entire sale for him. Since he had paid the entire sale trustees in fiduciary capacity consideration, he claimed that the sale deed in favour of his sons consideration, he claimed that the sale deed was liable to be in favour of his sons was liable to be rectified in his favour. rectified in his favour. 3. Defendants No. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 7 filed their written Defendants No. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 7 filed their written Defendants No. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 7 filed their written Defendants No. 1 to 4 and defendant No. 7 filed their written plaintiff and expressed no objection to the statements admitting the claim of the plaintiff and expressed no objection to the plaintiff and expressed no objection to the statements admitting the claim of the declaration sought. However, defendants No. 5 and 6, the widow and daughter of declaration sought. However, defendants No. 5 and 6, the widow and daughter of declaration sought. However, defendants No. 5 and 6, the widow and daughter of declaration sought. However, defendants No. 5 and 6, the widow and daughter of Gurpal Singh (since deceased ‘one of the sons of Jeon Singh’ Gurpal Singh (since deceased ), contested the suit. ‘one of the sons of Jeon Singh’), contested the suit. They asserted that Gurpal Singh was a co-owner to They asserted that Gurpal Singh was a co the extent of 1/5th share and owner to the extent of 1/5th share and that the sale deed was validly executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 and that the sale deed was validly executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 and that the sale deed was validly executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 and that the sale deed was validly executed in favour of defendants No. 1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh. They pleaded that after the death of Gurpal Singh, they had inherited Gurpal Singh. They pleaded that after the death of Gurpal Singh, they had inherited Gurpal Singh. They pleaded that after the death of Gurpal Singh, they had inherited Gurpal Singh. They pleaded that after the death of Gurpal Singh, they had inherited nded that the suit was his share and were in possession thereof. It was further contended that the suit was his share and were in possession thereof. It was further conte his share and were in possession thereof. It was further conte to defeat the rights barred by limitation, filed in collusion with the other defendants to defeat the rights barred by limitation, filed in collusion with the other defendants barred by limitation, filed in collusion with the other defendants I legal heirs of Gurpal Singh s/o Jeon of defendants No.5 and 6, who are class-I legal heirs of Gurpal Singh s/o Jeon I legal heirs of Gurpal Singh s/o Jeon of defendants No.5 and 6, who are class , and was not maintainable. Singh, and was not maintainable. 4. atement was filed by the plaintiff denied Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiff denied atement was filed by the plaintiff denied Replication to the written st
Legal Reasoning
the contentions raised therein. the contentions raised therein. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -3- 5. Following issues were framed:- Following i 1) Whether the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from Whether the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from Whether the suit land was purchased by the plaintiff from Sadhu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 09.06.1978 for a sale Sadhu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 09.06.1978 for a sale Sadhu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 09.06.1978 for a sale Sadhu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 09.06.1978 for a sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-? OPP consideration of 2) Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh deceased Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh deceased Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh deceased were holding the suit land as trustees for the plaintiff? If so, to what were holding the suit land as trustees for the plaintiff? If so, to what were holding the suit land as trustees for the plaintiff? If so, to what were holding the suit land as trustees for the plaintiff? If so, to what effect? OPP effect? 3) Whether the plaintiff cannot take any benefit for claiming the Whether the plaintiff cannot take any benefit for claiming the Whether the plaintiff cannot take any benefit for claiming the alleged in para No.19 of the written suit land owned by him as alleged in para No.19 of the written alleged in para No.19 of the written suit land owned by him as statement of defendants No.5 & 6? OPD statement of defendants No.5 & 6? OPD statement of defendants No.5 & 6? OPD 4) Relief. 6. oth sides led evidence. Both sides led evidence. Findings of the Trial Court Findings of the Trial Court 7. The learned trial Court observed that the sale deed dated The learned trial C 1978 ourt observed that the sale deed dated 09.06.1978 to 4 and Gurpal Singh (predecessor of stood in the name of defendants No. 1 to 4 and Gurpal Singh (predecessor of to 4 and Gurpal Singh (predecessor of stood in the name of defendants No. 1 defendants No. 5 and 6). It was not the case of the plaintiff that the names of his defendants No. 5 and 6). It was not the case of the plaintiff that the names of his defendants No. 5 and 6). It was not the case of the plaintiff that the names of his defendants No. 5 and 6). It was not the case of the plaintiff that the names of his sons were entered in the sale deed by mistake or by fraud played either by them or sons were entered in the sale deed by mistake or by fraud played either by them or sons were entered in the sale deed by mistake or by fraud played either by them or sons were entered in the sale deed by mistake or by fraud played either by them or ounted to asserting that the land by the vendor. Rather, the case of the plaintiff amounted to asserting that the land by the vendor. Rather, the case of the plaintiff am by the vendor. Rather, the case of the plaintiff am was purchased by him benami in the name of his sons. was purchased by him benami in the name of his sons. was purchased by him benami in the name of his sons. 8. ourt, therefore, held that in view of Section 2(1) The learned trial Court, therefore, held that in view of Section 2(1) ourt, therefore, held that in view of Section 2(1) The , no suit read with Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, no suit read with Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act read with Section 4(1) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act enforce a right in respect of property held benami could be entertained. or claim to enforce a right in respect of property held benami could be entertained. enforce a right in respect of property held benami could be entertained. enforce a right in respect of property held benami could be entertained. r interest in the suit property; It was concluded that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit property; It was concluded that the plaintiff had no right, title o It was concluded that the plaintiff had no right, title o that the sale deed could not be rectified, and accordingly the suit was dismissed. that the sale deed could not be rectified, and accordingly the suit was dismissed. that the sale deed could not be rectified, and accordingly the suit was dismissed. that the sale deed could not be rectified, and accordingly the suit was dismissed. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -4- of the Lower Appellate Court Findings of the Lower Appellate Court 9. On appeal, the learned lower appellate court reappraised the evidence. On appeal, the learned lower appellate court reappraised the evidence. On appeal, the learned lower appellate court reappraised the evidence. On appeal, the learned lower appellate court reappraised the evidence. It found that the agreements to sell in favour of the plaintiff stood proved and that It found that the agreements to sell in favour of the plaintiff stood proved and that It found that the agreements to sell in favour of the plaintiff stood proved and that It found that the agreements to sell in favour of the plaintiff stood proved and that t further held the entire sale consideration had been paid by him to Sadhu Ram. It further held the entire sale consideration had been paid by him to Sadhu Ram. I the entire sale consideration had been paid by him to Sadhu Ram. I that the plaintiff was the real purchaser of the property, although the sale deed was that the plaintiff was the real purchaser of the property, although the sale deed was that the plaintiff was the real purchaser of the property, although the sale deed was that the plaintiff was the real purchaser of the property, although the sale deed was executed in favour of his sons. executed in favour of his sons. 10. ourt also noted that rectification of the The learned lower Appellate Court also noted that rectification of the ourt also noted that rectification of the The case of mutual mistake. Yet, it held sale deed could not be granted as it was not a case of mutual mistake. Yet, it held case of mutual mistake. Yet, it held sale deed could not be granted as it was not a that since the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 had only prospective that since the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 had only prospective that since the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 had only prospective that since the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 had only prospective operation, and as the transaction date is to 1978, the plaintiff remained the on, and as the transaction date is prior to 1978, the plaintiff remained the to 1978, the plaintiff remained the aintiff as the owner of the suit real owner of the land. Accordingly, it declared the plaintiff as the owner of the suit real owner of the land. Accordingly, it declared the pl real owner of the land. Accordingly, it declared the pl property and entitled him to recover possession. The appeal was thus allowed, and property and entitled him to recover possession. The appeal was thus allowed, and property and entitled him to recover possession. The appeal was thus allowed, and property and entitled him to recover possession. The appeal was thus allowed, and the suit decreed. the suit decreed. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment of reversal passed by Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment of reversal passed by Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment of reversal passed by Feeling aggrieved by the above said judgment of reversal passed by Second Appeal has been filed the learned lower Appellate Court, present Regular Second Appeal has been filed the learned lower Appellate Court, present Regular the learned lower Appellate Court, present Regular by the appellants-Amarjeet Kaur and another against respondents by the appellants Jeon Singh and Amarjeet Kaur and another against respondents – Jeon Singh and Others. It is relevant to mention here that respondents No.1 and 6 died during the Others. It is relevant to mention here that respondents No.1 and 6 died during the Others. It is relevant to mention here that respondents No.1 and 6 died during the Others. It is relevant to mention here that respondents No.1 and 6 died during the are already on pendency of the present appeal and legal heirs of respondent No.1 are already on pendency of the present appeal and legal heirs of respondent N pendency of the present appeal and legal heirs of respondent N file as respondents No. 1 to 4. file as respondent Submissions of learned counsel for the parties Submissions of for the parties:- 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants N Learned counsel for the o. 5 and 6 has argued /defendants No. 5 and 6 has argued that the learned learned Appellate Court erred in reversing the well reasoned findings of ourt erred in reversing the well-reasoned findings of ourt. It is submitted that the suit was filed after more than 11 years of the trial Court. It is submitted that the suit was filed after more than 11 years of ourt. It is submitted that the suit was filed after more than 11 years of ourt. It is submitted that the suit was filed after more than 11 years of execution of the sale deed and was hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff execution of the sale deed and was hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff execution of the sale deed and was hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff execution of the sale deed and was hopelessly barred by limitation. The plaintiff of the sale deed in favour of his sons and could himself had procured the execution of the sale deed in favour of his sons and could of the sale deed in favour of his sons and could himself had procured the execution TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -5- not, after the lapse of more than a decade and only upon the death of Gurpal Singh, not, after the lapse of more than a decade and only upon the death of Gurpal Singh, not, after the lapse of more than a decade and only upon the death of Gurpal Singh, not, after the lapse of more than a decade and only upon the death of Gurpal Singh, seek to deprive his widow and daughter of their lawful share. It is further urged seek to deprive his widow and daughter of their lawful share. It is further urged seek to deprive his widow and daughter of their lawful share. It is further urged seek to deprive his widow and daughter of their lawful share. It is further urged ned by both courts below, and without that rectification was specifically declined by both courts below, and without ned by both courts below, and without that rectification was specifically decli rectification, title could not be declared in favour of the plaintiff. It is emphasized rectification, title could not be declared in favour of the plaintiff. It is emphasized rectification, title could not be declared in favour of the plaintiff. It is emphasized rectification, title could not be declared in favour of the plaintiff. It is emphasized that an agreement to sell does not confer title, and once the registered sale deed that an agreement to sell does not confer title, and once the registered sale deed that an agreement to sell does not confer title, and once the registered sale deed that an agreement to sell does not confer title, and once the registered sale deed ff cannot be declared owner. stands in favour of the defendants, the plaintiff cannot be declared owner. stands in favour of the defendants, the plainti 13. s No.1 On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondents No.1 On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent to 4 has supported the judgment of the has supported the judgment of the learned A ourt. He has argued that learned Appellate Court. He has argued that the plaintiff had proved execution of the agreements to sell, payment the plaintiff had proved execution of the agreements to sell, payment the plaintiff had proved execution of the agreements to sell, payment of consideration, and that the sale deed was procured out of his funds. It is contended consideration, and that the sale deed was procured out of his funds. It is contended consideration, and that the sale deed was procured out of his funds. It is contended consideration, and that the sale deed was procured out of his funds. It is contended that since the Benami Act has only prospective application, the plaintiff’s right as that since the Benami Act has only prospective application, the plaintiff’s right as that since the Benami Act has only prospective application, the plaintiff’s right as that since the Benami Act has only prospective application, the plaintiff’s right as real owner remains intact, and the appellate court has rightly declared him as the real owner remains intact, and the appellate court has rightly declared him as the real owner remains intact, and the appellate court has rightly declared him as the real owner remains intact, and the appellate court has rightly declared him as the owner. Findings 14. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the I have carefully considered the rival contentions and examined the record. 15. The pivotal issue in this case relates to the relief of rectification and The pivotal issue in this case relates to the relief of rectification and The pivotal issue in this case relates to the relief of rectification and The pivotal issue in this case relates to the relief of rectification and issue declaration claimed by the plaintiff. The trial court had framed an additional issue declaration claimed by the plaintiff. The trial court had framed an additional declaration claimed by the plaintiff. The trial court had framed an additional as to whether the sale deed dated 9 June 1978 was liable to be rectified. The burden as to whether the sale deed dated 9 June 1978 was liable to be rectified. The burden as to whether the sale deed dated 9 June 1978 was liable to be rectified. The burden as to whether the sale deed dated 9 June 1978 was liable to be rectified. The burden was on the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was on the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was on the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff was on the plaintiff. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff ither has failed to prove that the names of his sons were inserted in the sale deed either has failed to prove that the names of his sons were inserted in the sale deed e has failed to prove that the names of his sons were inserted in the sale deed e and that the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 26 of by mistake or fraud and that the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 26 of and that the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 26 of by mistake or fraud . Thus, rectification of the sale deed could not be the Specific Releif Act, 1963. Thus, rectification of the sale deed could not be . Thus, rectification of the sale deed could not be the Specific Releif Act, findings have attained finality as these are not challenged by any granted. These findings have attained finality as these are not challenged by any findings have attained finality as these are not challenged by any granted. These party. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -6- 16. n such a situation, the learned Appellate In such a situation, the ourt was not justified in ppellate Court was not justified in decreeing the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the owner merely on the basis of the decreeing the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the owner merely on the basis of the decreeing the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the owner merely on the basis of the decreeing the suit by declaring the plaintiff as the owner merely on the basis of the to sell and payment of sale consideration. It is trite that an agreement agreements to sell and payment of sale consideration. It is trite that an agreement to sell and payment of sale consideration. It is trite that an agreement to sell and payment of sale consideration. It is trite that an agreement to sell does not by itself confer title. Once the registered sale deed stands in the to sell does not by itself confer title. Once the registered sale deed stands in the to sell does not by itself confer title. Once the registered sale deed stands in the to sell does not by itself confer title. Once the registered sale deed stands in the names of the sons of the plaintiff, and the relief of rectification has been declined, names of the sons of the plaintiff, and the relief of rectification has been declined, names of the sons of the plaintiff, and the relief of rectification has been declined, names of the sons of the plaintiff, and the relief of rectification has been declined, Sale ation of ownership in favour of the plaintiff is wholly untenable. Sale ation of ownership in favour of the plaintiff is wholly untenable. the declaration of ownership in favour of the plaintiff is wholly untenable. plaintiff deed in question till date stands in the name of sons of Jeon Singh-plaintiff deed in question till date stands in the name of sons of Jeon Singh deed in question till date stands in the name of sons of Jeon Singh (including Gurpal Singh, predecessor in interest of appellants herein) (including Gurpal Singh, predecessor in interest of appellants herein) (including Gurpal Singh, predecessor in interest of appellants herein) 17. in treating the matter as one of benami Learned trial Court has erred in treating the matter as one of benami in treating the matter as one of benami Learned transaction. The controversy did not essentially relate to the applicability of the transaction. The controversy did not essentially relate to the applicability of the transaction. The controversy did not essentially relate to the applicability of the transaction. The controversy did not essentially relate to the applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but to the legal effect of the sale Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but to the legal effect of the sale Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but to the legal effect of the sale Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but to the legal effect of the sale f. The plaintiff himself was deed standing in favour of the sons of the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself was deed standing in favour of the sons of the plaintif deed standing in favour of the sons of the plaintif instrumental in having the sale deed executed in their favour, and he remained instrumental in having the sale deed executed in their favour, and he remained instrumental in having the sale deed executed in their favour, and he remained instrumental in having the sale deed executed in their favour, and he remained silent for over 11 years. The suit was filed only after the death of Gurpal Singh, silent for over 11 years. The suit was filed only after the death of Gurpal Singh, silent for over 11 years. The suit was filed only after the death of Gurpal Singh, silent for over 11 years. The suit was filed only after the death of Gurpal Singh, their lawful clearly with the intention of depriving his widow and daughter of their lawful clearly with the intention of depriving his widow and daughter of clearly with the intention of depriving his widow and daughter of Moreover, it was never pleaded by plaintiff that transaction being Benami, share. Moreover, it was never pleaded by plaintiff that transaction being Benami, Moreover, it was never pleaded by plaintiff that transaction being Benami, Moreover, it was never pleaded by plaintiff that transaction being Benami, sale deed be set aside. No findings were required to be given on Benani sale deed be set aside. No findings were required to be given on Benani sale deed be set aside. No findings were required to be given on Benani sale deed be set aside. No findings were required to be given on Benani transaction by the Courts below. The same be ignored. transaction by the Courts below. The same be ignored. transaction by the Courts below. The same be ignored. 18. also well founded. The sale deed was The plea of limitation is also well founded. The sale deed was also well founded. The sale deed was The plea of limitation is executed in the year 1978, while the suit was filed in 1989. No case has been made the year 1978, while the suit was filed in 1989. No case has been made 1978, while the suit was filed in 1989. No case has been made out as to why the plaintiff waited for more than a decade to seek rectification or out as to why the plaintiff waited for more than a decade to seek rectification or out as to why the plaintiff waited for more than a decade to seek rectification or out as to why the plaintiff waited for more than a decade to seek rectification or declaration. The suit is, therefore, barred by limitation. declaration. The suit is, therefore, barred by limita declaration. The suit is, therefore, barred by limita 19. ourt, while affirming that the sale deed The learned lower Appellate Court, while affirming that the sale deed ourt, while affirming that the sale deed The could not be rectified, paradoxically proceeded to declare the plaintiff as the could not be rectified, paradoxically proceeded to declare the plaintiff as the could not be rectified, paradoxically proceeded to declare the plaintiff as the could not be rectified, paradoxically proceeded to declare the plaintiff as the contradictory. Once the registered sale deed stands, owner. This reasoning is self-contradictory. Once the registered sale deed stands, contradictory. Once the registered sale deed stands, owner. This reasoning is self TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3618-1997 1997 (O&M) -7- fication is permissible, the title must remain with the recorded vendees. and no rectification is permissible, the title must remain with the recorded vendees. fication is permissible, the title must remain with the recorded vendees. fication is permissible, the title must remain with the recorded vendees. The appellate court has thus acted without jurisdiction in granting relief to the The appellate court has thus acted without jurisdiction in granting relief to the The appellate court has thus acted without jurisdiction in granting relief to the The appellate court has thus acted without jurisdiction in granting relief to the plaintiff. Conclusion 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court cannot be that the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court cannot be the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court cannot be the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate court cannot be sustained. The suit of the plaintiff having been rightly dismissed by the trial court, sustained. The suit of the plaintiff having been rightly dismissed by the trial court, sustained. The suit of the plaintiff having been rightly dismissed by the trial court, sustained. The suit of the plaintiff having been rightly dismissed by the trial court, the appellate court erred in law in decreeing the same. the appellate court erred in law in decreeing the same. the appellate court erred in law in decreeing the same. 21. Accordingly, this Regular Second Appe Accordingly, this ned Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 03.09.1997 passed by the judgment and decree dated 03.09. ppellate passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside, and that of the trial C t aside, and that of the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiff vide ourt dismissing the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.1992 is upheld judgment and decree dated 20.02.1992 upheld. 22.
Decision
Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 19, 2025 2025 tripti (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non : Yes/No : Yes/No Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.20 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document