Reply On Behalf of Respondent No. 6 in OA No. 428 of 2023 (SC Kaushal v. State of Punjab & Ors.)
Reply On Behalf of Respondent No. 6 in OA No. 428 of 2023 (SC Kaushal v. State of Punjab & Ors.)
Reply On Behalf of Respondent No. 6 in OA No. 428 of 2023 (SC Kaushal v. State of Punjab & Ors.)
RESPONDENT NO.6
THROUGH
outlandishly claimed that the said college has cut down about 150
2. At the outset, it is stated that save and except what are matters of
as well as in facts of the present case, and the same are denied in
society has planted about 2200 trees on its own land over the
planting trees and the proper method to do the same. A true and
30-year-old trees and was also engaged in the sale of such trees
offence.
6. It is evident that even as per the Applicant, the cause of action first
filed only on 15.03.2023. The said application was thus filed more
than 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first
are as follows,
33. It may be noticed that even after sufficient cause has been
shown, a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in
question as a matter of right. The proof of sufficient cause is
a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary
jurisdiction vested in the courts. This aspect of the matter
naturally introduces the consideration of all relevant facts
and it is at this stage that diligence of the party or its
bonafides may fall for consideration.”
its maintainability.
However, the Applicant has failed to make out any case under the
Respondent No.6.
6
57
14. Moreover, the Applicant has not made out in which capacity has it
the NGT Act, 2010. The Applicant has filed the present application
15. The application thus, fails to meet the minimum requirement for
paragraphs.
20. It is also clarified that the college is built on land near the boundary
Singh. The college has also leased a tract of land which is adjacent
2023 for a rent of INR 90,000/- for one year, which has in fact been
21. The land which is the subject matter of the captioned application
22. It is further clarified that that the entire premise of the Applicant’s
that the said barbed wire was planted by the gram panchayat
bogus allegations.
23. The answering Respondent further submits that the college has
submits that even though Lord Krishna College has not put up the
responsible for illegal felling of 150 trees, which were found on the
never and will never undertake any action which would result in
land.
dilutes the bizarre and bogus claim of the Applicant. The report
pending further investigation by the local police, the need for the
32. It is imperative to highlight that earlier, the Applicant (as his wife’s
R-5
33. It is submitted that ever since then, the Applicant has been finding
College and also his family members and the present litigation is
12
63
another frail attempt in doing so. It is most humbly submitted that
34. The instant application is devoid of not merit but also downrightly
35. The law regarding frivolous public interest litigation by over zealous
litigants has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402.
36. The Applicant has pursued this proxy litigation only to harass the
processes.
38. In light of the above stated, it is submitted that the Applicant has
pleaded and proved for any relief under the NGT Act, 2010, as
sought for by way of the present application and therefore the same
,
e-Stamp
It m~n ~.! ~
Au ,'0-:: <.tu
IN_PB52313975B75160V t 'ct,.rl (Kpt)
Certificate No_ l ou 4J.-7i.I 393 1 .
21-0 cl -2023 01 :3 5 PM
Certificate Issued Dale
pbm adhudu
Certl licat Issued By
NEWIMPACC (SV)I pb70399041 KAPURTHALAI PB-KT
Account Reference
SUBIN _PBPB703990406001661 BB2B09V
Unique Doc. Reference
SARPREET SI NGH SO MAAN SINGH
Purchased by
. :, ' Article 4 AHictavit
Descri plion of Document
, Not Applicable
Property Description
Not Applicable
Area of Property
Consideration Price (Rs.l
o ~.
(Zero)
SARPREET SINGH SO MAAN SINGH
Firsl Party
Not Applicable
Second Party
SARPREET SINGH SO MAAN SINGH
SIamp Duty Pai d By
50
Stamp Duty Amounl(Rs.) (Fifty only)
Sociallnfraslruclure Cess(Rs.)
o
(Zero)
50 j
Total Stamp Duly Amount(Rs.) (Fifty only) .~
.~
-:-
.,
. 'i" _,
~ .
"
-'
<
,..T'.
ii
" ''''
,.;:,
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Sarpreet Singh, aged 41 years, Sio Shri Maan Singh, Rio H . No. 60,
Model Town, Kapurthala, Punjab, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
2. That I have gone through the contents of the accompanying reply stated
therein are true and correct to my knowledge and have been drafted at my
instructions and the same be read as part and parcel of this Affidavit and are
not being repeated here for the sake of brevity.
3. The annexures enclosed with the reply are true and correct copies of their
..espective originals
~~~)\
DEPONENT
~.
~ • ~ -- 2 1 0LT 2023
• at.
Verified on this _ day
. of Oct 0 ber, 2023 that the contents of
the above
. afl ldavlt
. orc true ond correct to my kno w Ie dge, no part of..It IS
. false and
nothmg material has been concealed there from.
I . ~ ST E D
' • ~ "~'. I '. ~, Vul.. "'-:11.
t ,/j :'t l '..-
.
<I r
I ( eI
DEPONENT
rnfil:=s
lful"R.71'1111 "---.II
,!UIR.!lf\lf1 "-.-.A
18
69
NEWS ITEM DATED 15.08.2016
PUBLISHED IN DAILY AJIT
The students should plant more and more trees to take care of the
environment – Inderjeet Singh Sidhu
Kapurthala, 14th August (S.R.) – On the start of new academic year, the
students and management of Lord Krishna Polytechnic College and Shaheed
Udham Singh College of Technology, have planted 150 plants/trees in the
Campus of both the Colleges. The inauguration of plantation work was done
by Inderjeet Singh Sidhu, Chairman and Mann Singh Dham, Deputy
Chairman of the Managing Committee. On this occasion, Inderjeet Singh
Sidhu threw light in detail about the importance of trees. He stated that
earlier also, a large amount of trees were planted in the Campus of College,
but for purity of environment, by planting more trees in the College, the same
will be taken care of/ maintained by the Management. On this occasion/
event, in addition to the Sandeep Sharma, Principal, Shri P.C.S Saidan, Vice
Principal of the College, Gurparkash Singh Sidhu, Member, Mann Singh
Dham, Patron, Harminder Singh Dham, Departmental Heads of both the
Colleges and a large number of students participated.
*******
ADVOCATE
ANNEXURE-R2
19
70
20
71
21
72
22
73
23
74
24
75
ANNEXURE-R3 (COLLY) 25
76
,."OCr.r.D'I'IO
IIOOK
....
.
-.,..,.. ...
........
.-"...
-
..
"' ," .
26
77
PROCEEDING
... --
BOOK
,~,f.
~'" ,<:=,,,11"1 .,,1
~ ~ ".~ ~.y,.... {, C''''' A Ji~' v'
~~ I ""t':;l, ~"-C ~<r.J...34',
., .\; '"
~
,\ "-
~,
~ '" I
"'7} ,&,£.,., ~
)IJ~0
J D"" '<>'I~
~ Ills /t>...
27
78
Today on 12-6-2023, the meeting of Gram Panchayat Badshahpur was held under the
presidentship of Mr. Charandeep Singh and the proceedings were presented as follows.
It was passed that the land near Lord Krishna College of Gram Panchayat Badshahpur was bid on
today's date because of which the bidders have gathered and the bidding process is being
started.The bidding conditions are as follows.
1. land will be given on lease for one year i.e. 2023 to 2024.
2. All bid amount will be taken on the spot.
3. If the lessee levels the land then no assistance will be given by the Gram Panchayat and
all the expenses will be borne by the lessee.
This plot is given on lease for one year 2023-24 in the name of Maan Singh, son of Surjan
Singh, resident of village Dham for 90 thousand rupees.
The resolution is approved.
-
1 - -
R.c.lpt No.laH1"' ...h;. .......... ·...... ·.. ·.. ·...... ..
Nam. of panchayat... ........ ·...... ·.. 6\C[1=i \~ q-r. . . . .
Case JudlciaLM"l'Il,i{1 I!1I::ft ." .. ............................
- .
Name of
~ ~~h "1?t"/II1)
Fee/Wllff'l\\l<~ as> l:.s -Ol,;
Fln.s/ija>t't;~ '. '.
Taxesthlf~ ..............
Compensatio~~31lcNII ............. .
Dona\lonll!'?l'/l:R ............. .
GovI. of Local
..............
Total ~;;;'ati==h
-. ~===~====
ANNEXURE-R5 29
C- -- ~
80
uru No.l'lnEI 12 1
'",J' ' In the Court of Ms. Harpreet Kaur,PCS,
Add1.Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kapurthala.
G:NR No.PBKP02-000384-2012.
CS No.7419-2013.
Suit No.364 of 16.01.2012.
Date of decision:30.01 .2018.
r;,. ~ No .-! :2 U d1- os{ 03/~o ( g
. . .. Plaintiff.
Versus
branch Manager).
. .. .Defendants.
'.
30
81
K",mlc.. lJeui Vs. lJJjit 3'in9h & Or.s.
UfU No.l"131:B Ie 2
North: 60 ft 3 Inch/passage
_._. J and from filing of the present suit till actual realization of the
ATTESTED
o
(C . pyt,lO Examiner) -
strict &S ssions J~
Kaourthal(1j
AND
~ 1JJUDGMENT
1 Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the defendant
No.1 was owner in possession of the house as fully detailed in the head
.
note of the plaint. The defendant agreed to sell the house in dispute and
sum of Rs.5 lakh as earnest moriey in the presence of the witnesses. The
I
c) In cast' tile defendanl No.1 failed to execute the sale deed in favour
oi'plainlil'l'by the s tipulated date, the defendant shall pay sum equal to the
c~lrnes l money as damages ther~of. On the other hand in case the plaintiff
ail ed lo get the sale deed executed in his favour in terms of the agreement
10 1' sa le, lhell the agreement shall stand cancelled and earnest money shall
I s tand fo rfeited.
I
' d) 1'11C sa Ie deed in terms of the agreement for sale can be got
I exec uted by the plasintiff in his own name or in the name of any other
I he lixed date.
m STED
(COPYin~miner)
Oistrict &Sessions J~e
Kaourthala @
.~13 SEp LUlJ
/ r 33
84 0Y
I
I v /
.I
5
agreement for sale by performing his part of the contract. On the fixed
dated i.e. 5.4.2011, the plaintiff remained present in the office of Sub
of expenses and waited for the defendant from morning till evening but
the defendant No.1 did not turn up to perform his part of the contract. A
last the plaintiff got his presence marked by executing an affidavit duly
Thereafter the plaintiff served a notice dated 6.4.2011 upon the defendant
with a request to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per the
redeem the land from the bank. The said notice as duly served upon the
defendant but he did not reply. Again on 18.4.2011, the plaintiff remained
consideration and am'ount of expenses and waited for the defendant from
morning till evening but the defendant did not turn up to perform his part
of the contract. At last the plaintiff got his presence marked by duly
the defendant with a request to execute the sale deed in her favour as per
the terms and conditions of the agreement, but he has been lingering on
the matter on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff has also recently learnt
that the detendant is trying to alienate and transfer and also to create
charge over the suit land, illegally and worngly. If the defendant
succeeded in their evil designs, then the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable
loss -and-injury.
~
The plaintiff
- - _._- .-- finally approached the defendant No.1 and
:TED
(~~nei)
t)18\rict & SeSsions Judge
-=-
l<aourth3l iJ:j
13 SEP~3
I1 34
85 ~~' i
K"mlo. 1Ye vi Vs. 1Y,..Jjit 3"in 9h & 0.5. UT"rrNo.VBD312 \.
· t rms of agreement for sale in '
requested them to execute the sale dee d In e
o few days ago, before initially
question but the defendant refused to do s
. . d fendant No.1 Daljit Singh has
tiling the suit. Now, it has transpired that e
t Kaur wife of Sarpreet
illegally sold the suit property to one Harpree
. '11 e Dham now residing in
Singh son or Maan Singh, resident of VI ag
. . 2012. This sale deed has been
Kapurthala city Vide sale deed dated 29.02.
. dis ute and to cause harm to
created illegally to compliance the matter In p
. Ie deed is false and illegal
the interest of the plaintiff I applIcant. The sa
. . . d't has got no effect on the
executed during the pendency of thiS SUIt an I
the purchaser has been
rights of the plaintiff. As such Harpreet K aur
added as defendant No.2 in the suit who has illegally purchased the suit
property vide the above said sale deed during the pendency of this suit to
get illegal gain with mala fide intention knowing about the agreement
also made an application to the police regarding the illegal sale and
committing fraud with the plaintiff. It has also transpires and now come to
the notice of the plaintiff that after settling the account of the Land
Mortgage Bank, The Mall . Kapurthala the plaintiff has further took loan
and mortgaged the suit property during this suit with State Bank of India ,
in the suit and to cause loss to the plaintiff and thus defendant No.1 has
got illegal gains. This mortgage has been created without the knowledge
of the plainti ff and during the pendency of this suit. So the State Bank of
india, Branch Aman Nagar, Kapurthala through its Manager has been
AI'ESlED
/' ~ J "-
~ --
~Examjner)
& Sessions JUdot
KaDurthala I~\
,13 SEP 202P
,--.- - -- ._ • • T
/
i
35
,/
.'
86
UT1JNo.VlITB 12 7
impleaded as defendant No.3 which is necessary for the effective and just
disposal of the case and to know about the details of the mortgage. In case
amount granted be created as prayed in the suit on the suit property for the
defendant No.1 Daljit Sin1gh has no other property from where recovery of
be created over the suit property for the recovery of the same. The
agreement for sale dated 5.1.2011 but if this Hon'ble Court for any
reasons comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree
for specific performance, then in the said event the plaintiff prays for
the plaint. The plaintiff is also entitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. on the
said amount as defendant has caused wrongful ~oss to the plaintiff and
own act and conduct, omission and commission to file the present suit.
The plaintiff plaintift;has hot come to the Court with clean hands and have
,
H,",pj.e~t Ko.uJ>. ~'C:J( ~). Kpt. UT1JNo.Vm:J3 12
r
v
36
I 87
UTlY No.'P1SD3 12
al11~unt of Rs.2,50,OOO/- as loan. The plaintiff agreed to the same, but put
a condition that the defendant should sign the blank documents as per her
option but to admit the demand of the plaintiff and accordingly, the
defendant signed the blank stamp paper and register etc as per the
instructions of the plaintiff in good faith. Thus the defendant took a loan
month. But unfortunately the defendant could not repay the loan amount
and the plaintiff started pressurizing the defendant. On this account, the
plaintiff became annoyed and she created the alleged agreement to sell
with false facts and allegations. The answering defendant never executed
any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff nor there was any occasion
for the same. The alleged agreement is false, forged and fabricated
which is the only dwelling house of the defendant nor the defendant had
any inlention to sell the same at any moment. The suit is bad for non
house in dispute, but the said bank has not been impleaded as party. The
s uit is harsh and hard . The value of the house in dispute is more than
Rs.35 lakh, but the defendant had no occasion to agree .to sel the same for
Rs.20 lakh in favour of the plaintiff nor he received any amount of Rs.5
upon any alleged terms and conditions does not arise at all. It is denied
that the defendant agreetl to sell his house constructed over 15 Marla to
sell his house constructetl over 15 Marias of he land for a meager sum of
Rs.20 lakh nor he received any amount of Rs.5 lakh as earnest money.
There was no such agreement at all. It is denied that the plaintiff remained
ready and willing or is stili ready and willing to get the sale deed
alleged fixed dated i.e. 5.4.2011, the plaintiff remained present in the
etc as alleged. It is denied that any alleged affidavit was got attested by
her. The affidavit, if any is self serving admission, which is not binding on
the defendant. No such legal notice was ever served upon the defendant
nor there was any occasion for the same. It is denied that the notice was
served upon the defendant. It is denied that the plaintiff again remained
documents have been got prepared by the plaintiff in order to create false
intention to sell his house at all. It is denied that the plaintiff would suffer
an~Joss or injury. The plaintiff never approached the defendant nor there
ATTESTED
..
-=~ (Copy1~nler)
District & Sessions Judge
Kaourtnala ~
13 SEP 2023
~,
38
89 ~~ ,
\
\
mlY No.V131J=1 12
K",m\", lYe vi V5. lY",Jjit ~i"9h &0.5. l.~ '\
The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief '
was any occasion for the same. Of
. filed to the alternative relief as claimed
specific performance nor she IS en 1
in this para.
eared through counsel and
3 Upon notice defendant no. 2 app
iminary objections that the
filed written statement by taking prel
d b the plaintiff is a false, anti
agreement to sell dated 05.01.2011 al Iege Y
dated, forged and fabricated and created document with the help of
defendant no.1 in order defeat the rights of the defendant no.2. the case si
collusive between plaintiff and defendant No.1, hence the suit is liable to
be dismissed. The suit as framed is not maintainable. The plaintiff has got
no locus standi or cause of action to file the present suit. The plaintiff has
not come to the Court with clean hands and have suppressed the real facts
from this Court, knowingly and willfully with malafide intention, as such
the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the suit. The suit is
not valued properly for the purposes of Court fee by the plaintiff, hence, a
less Court fee has been affixed by the plaintiff so the suit be dismissed on
this score alone. The house in dispute in much more valuable then the
alleged by the plaintiff. The amended suit is also defected as in para no.7-
B, it is very well mentioned that" the plaintiff has further took loan and
m011gaged the suit property durng the suit with State Bank of India,
branch Aman Nagar, Kapurthala which is wrong and a wrong version has
been put forward to frame the structure of the suit maintainable against
lhedefendant No,2 and 3. Vide sale deed 29.02.2012, defendant No.2 has
ATTESTED
U
(Copying Examiner ~- -
-- ----
I)istrict &Sessions JudGe
Kaourthala @
1 3 SEP 2023
---
v
'%.....
~~ 39
90
,
.; ~. "\
~
~. ...... I
% 0 ""'0 I
0- ""'" /
'1/ mu No.VBD3 12 11
5 K-6M our of which 15/t06 share which is OK-15M with the following
Rs.12 . lacs and has been in possession of property from the date of
execution of the sale deed lupti11 now. The answering defendant has got no
bonafide purchaser for the sale consideration ofRs.12 lacs without notice
costs. After the execution of sale deed referred in para no .6, the
defendant No.1 has joined han:ds with plaintiff to harm the interest of
connivance with the defendant No.1 just to defeat the right of answering
defendants. It is wrong that a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid as earnest money
defendants.
suit is not maintainable in present form. The plaintiff has got no locus
standi and cause of a~to file the present suit. The plaintiff is estopped
ATTESTED
- ~
~(~p;~~n~r) :-
a
District & Seuions Judge
Kaourthata
13 SEP 1oi3
40
91
Ko.ml ", -U-eu,. V5 , "'"J
U l
'it 3"t"~h & {),.5,
,
'i>l
. d the said plot measuring '--
plot. The defendant No.1 eqUitably mortgage
dted 04.04.2003 Vasika No.49 in favour of the defendant No.3 Banle The
defendant No.1 also signed all the security documents and raised the
construction on the said plot with the loan amount obtained from the
No,1 did not care to adjust the loan account' inspite of repeated requests
made by the defendant No.3. the loan account has become sticky and the
13
connived with each other to grab the loan amount of defendant No.3. the
Kaur with adjusting the loan account and committed a breach of terms and
offence and liable for prosecution. Hence, the suit of plaintiff is liable to
( correct. The remaining part regarding agreement to sell is denied for want
defendant no.3, which is in the knowledge plaintiff and plaintiff no. 1 and
2.
in the plaint, the defendants have prayed for the dismissal of the instant
suit.
period?OPP
prayed for?OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean
hands and have suppressed the real facts from the Court?
OPD.
OPD.
created document?OPD
AlTESTED
. « ~OPYincf~,fminer)
DIstrict &session8~e
Kaourthala
13 SEP .
43
94
Ko.mlo. l)"eul V:!>. l)"",lJrt 3"11>fjH & a.~.
15
Court fee?OPD.
11. Relief.
EX.P2 Affidavit
EX.P3 Notice
dated:8.4.20Il
EX.P6 Affidavit
I
EX.P8 Inquiry
PW3 Shokin Chand Kaushal marked as PW2 has also corroborated the
-- EX.P6 Affidavit
; 95
17
-~
;tf
" OPP)
compositely being interlinked. The onus to prove these issues was upon
the plaintiff Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant No.1 is
owner of the suit property and had agreed to sell the suit property to the
I
executed for total sale consideration of Rs.20 lacs and Rs.5 lacs were
that if defendant No .1 failed to execute the sale deed he will pay sum
and willing to perform his part of contract to execute the sale deed on
f
t 05.01.2011. Plaintiff was present at the office of Sub Registrar,
!
I Kapurthala alongwith balance sale consideration and expenses for
registration but defendant No.1 did not turn up. Thereafter marking his
presence before Sub Registrar plaintiff served notice upon the defendant
presence but defendant no.1 did not turn up. Now, plaintiff has come to
know that defendant No.1 has alienated the suit property to defendant
No.2 vide sale deed dated 29.02.2012 and has further took loan from
r---- -,
\
\
ATIESTED
- - : I"
(CoPYing~)
District &~i~'Z'~~e
~
Kaourthal
13 SEP
45
96
)' /~ .
un; No.VISH:: 12
h
K I ,..,. "Vs. llJJ"lt 3"ln9 17 Drs.
c..m '" ueVI
lateron has executed this agreement to sell with false fact. Defendant
II Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.2 has argued that defendant
No.2 is bonafide purchaser, who has purchased the suit land vide sale
deed dated 29.02.2012 . Ld. Counsel for the defendant No.2 has further
argued that he is bonafide purchaser who had purchased the suit property
without notice and for due consideration. The defendant No.2 has paid
detendant No.1 and plaintiff has connived with each other to defeat the
right of defendant No.2, who had already paid the entire consideration
amount and sale deed has been executed in his favour which is duly
registered, Thereafter, the defendant No.1 has mortgaged the suit land
no.2 only when notice was received by S.B.1. This notice was also
installment of mortgage amount and has cleared the entire loan. Factum of
ATTESTED
(Copyln~ner)
District &Sessions ~
Kaourthala V
13 SEP 2023
/ 97 (,
/
46
UTlJ No.VITo=! 12 19
readiness and willingness of plaintiff is without any merit. The sale deed
of defendant No.1 on 30.05.2006 qua the suit land. Defendant No.1 had
also signed all the security document and raised construction with the loan
amount but defendant No.1 had not returned the loan amount despite
defendant No.3 sold the suit property to defendant No.2. In the course of
evidence it has come on record that defendant No.2 is clearing all the
clearance of land has been placed on record whereby this fact stand duly
established.
parties and have gone through the case file . Plaintiff to prove his assertion
has stepped into witness box as PWI and has reiterated the entire facts of
the plaint in the examination-in-chief, which are not reproduced for the
land has been sold to defendant No.2 and possession of the house is with
that the consideration amount of Rs.5 lacs has passed to defendant No.1.
She categorically stated that the amount withdrawn by her husband was
- - - -----~
ATTESTED
(C~pYi~r)
District & Sessions Judge
KaolJrthala /J!l
-'3 SEP W
47
98
K...ml" Ueui Vs. U"ljit 3'i119h &Ot.s.
d the denomination of notes was Rs.IOOO"
given to the defendant No.1 an
. h h d given Rs.20001- to the typist who
each. She further stated that s e a
amount after withdrawing the same from the Punjab National Bank who
IB PW6 ASI Nirmal Singh has proved the FIR and statement of
ATTESTED
(COpytf!g~~)
District &Sessions Judg<:.
Kaourthala (9.i:5 I
~
0
uro No.VI3LB 12 21
~
}
agreement remained unproved on record as neither witnesses to the
agreement to sell EX.Pl have been examined. Neither Jagir Singh nor
witness box to prove the same. The non examination of these witnesses go
to the root of the case. The document is unregistered. The Deed writer of
the agreement to sell has also not been examined to establish the due
have not been examined. The statement of sale deed before polic~ and his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.c. has been brought on record which is
Ex. 71A. This statement is not proved on .record as per Evidence Act. In
otherwise, statement before police is enter a very week evidence and need
:-
I COITO borati on.
have failed to establish that there was any intent to enter into agreement to
No.1 stands duly admitted. Although plaintiff has proved her readiness
case Man Kaur (Dead) by Lrs Vs. Hartar Singh Sangha, 2011 (3)LJR, 405
,---- 1
H ;1'>;~'e CKW:;:' 7'\-e-1( 31)). Kpt. mu No.VR[EI 12
money. Also in case Joseph Johan Peter Sandv vs. Veronica ThoI1JS.§
Raikumar & Am:. 2013(3) eee 270 (S.c.), wherein it has been held that
singing blank paper theory. Document typed on stamp papers. Name and
When there is theory of signing blank papers then scrible is the best
person to reveal the correct positi~n with respect to whether blank papers
were signed or whether the executant had come to him for the execution
of the document with the attesting witnesses and scribe could have
explained who had bought the non judicial stamp papers for the
irs & Drs. 2013(2) CCC 071CSC>, wherein it has been held that a party to
for the reason, that such party cannot attest its own signature.
(ii) That the purchase was made with rule with consent of the
ATTESTED
(COpying~) _.
I)istrict & sessions ~glS
Kaourthala V
rt 3 SEP 2023
/
/ 101
50
mlY No.V131B 12 23
owner.
No.2 and in good faith and reasonable care was taken by the
property.
22 The defendant No.2 has duly proved the fact that defendant
No.1 was owner of the suit property which is duly admitted by plaintiff
also. It has further admitted by the plaintiff himself that the sale made by
the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated
23 To prove the factum that the said purchase was without notice
prior to agreement with the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 has stepped into
witness box and has stated on oath that she was not having any knowledge
She has further stated that she had no knowledge about the alleged
examination this fact has further been fortified as she has admitted her
possession of the suit ·Iand. She has further stated that the sale
Defendant No.1 has not come forward to rebut this fact. Her cross-
examination clarifies the fact that she was not having knowledge of
agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff and the sale deed was executed
without notice of the agreement to sell and for consideration which was
duly paid to defendant No.2. The act of defendant No.2 was in good faith
c--
\ ~
51
102
• V lJJjit 3"in91. & 0.5.
K",,,,I,,, lJevl 5.
'b her while execution of sale deed '
as taken Y . 11\ h.
reasonable care w .'"
t to sell in favour of plaintiff
the agreemen \l;~
favour. Moreover,
no occasion for defendant No.2 to have
unregistered. There was
If it was not disclosed by vendor of
knowledge of agreement to sell.
h band made reasonable enquiry by
detendant No.1. She and her us
visiting the suit property. Hence, the
looking Fard lamabandi and
d sale deed dated 29.02.2012 is a
defendant No.2 is bonafide purc haser an
I' fff in the present suit has not
valid sale deed. Moreover, th e P am 1
defendant No.1 , therefore the sale deed dated ' 29.02.2012 is a valid
Ginder Singh and others Vs. Jagir Singh and others. " 1986(1) All India
Land Laws Reporter Vol.XIIJ, 126(P&H), wherein it has been held that as
the transferor, (ii) with express or implied consent of the real owners, (iii)
others Vs. Shiv Dev Singh and others". Vol.LXXXVI-1984 The Punjab
purchaser- cannot be said to have acted in good faith if does not made
inquiry at the time of purchase of property from the person who is in its
ATTESTED
~
(Copying examiner)
District & Sessions ~ge
Kaourthal a ~
possession. Also in case '']oginder Singh Vs. Surinder Pal Sjngh 'J,
2001(2) CCC 140 (P&H), wherein it has been held that subsequent
prior agreement to sell. In present case DWI Harpreet Kaur has proved
defendant No.1 took loan on property after sale to her and she has cleared
all the loan and was further burdened with loan amount of Rs.6.70 lacs
amount of Rs.5 lacs from plaintiff to defendant no.! stands duly proved.
lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 6% from the date of agreement dated
05.01.2011, till its actual realization. Hence, issues No.l,3 & 9 are
decided against the plaintiff and issue No.2 is decided paItly in favour of
plaintiff.
Issue No.4
inherent right in every person to bring the suit of one's choice. A suit for
ATTESTED
(COPYi~~
District & sessions Judge
Kaourthal arM:l
'3 SEP ,2~
( 53
104
. v u"l:it 3"t1191, &0.5,
KoJT'Il" U",UI 5, "
d counsel for the defendants in
, of suit. Learn e th~
bars the fi\lng ' . ,. ~\
t we by which this SUIt IS not rnaint '
has not mentioned any s a al~\\
case I' 'ff
, ' ed in favour of the p amtl and against
h
' issue IS decld t~\
Hence, t IS
defendants,
Issue No.5,
locus standi to file the
, 'ff i cause of action and
(Whether the piamtl 1as no
present suit?OPD)
" was upon the defendants. The
26 Onus to prove thIS Issue
. ' f congeries of facts for which it
expression cause of actIOn compnses 0
would be necessary for the piaintiffto support his right to judgment ofthe
Court. Cause of action means cause which gives occasion for and forms
loundation of suit. The plaintiff has approached the Court to redress her
grievance as she has challenged the transfer deeds executed by her mother
sustain her standing to sue. Locus standi signifies right to be heard. The
plaintiff has approached the Court praying for redress of her grievance.
Issue No .6
(Whether the suit of the plaintiff is estopped by its own act and conduct?
OPD)
Delendants have failed to establish why the plaintiff has estopped by her
own act and conduct from filing the present suit nor they have proved
-" - -'Sl)),
f.f""''''eet KWJP, 7\"(!J( - Kpt. m1YNo,'PTILEI 12
ATTESTED
I 'f
(Copying ~ner)
District & Sessions Judge
Kaourthala (§;)
13 SEP Wr3
n .\
,'.) ,
54
105 ffilJ No.VrrU:1 12 27
this fact on record. In absence of any evidence in this regard, these issues
Issue No.7
(Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and
there on record which shows that any material fact has been concealed by
through the presentation of the instant suit. There is nothing which impels
the Court to conclude that plaintiff has not come to the court with clean
Issue No.8
have failed to explain how the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties nor defendants have proved these facts on record that why the suit
absence of any evidence in this regard, thus issue is decided against the
Issue No.10
( (Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee?
OPD)
report of
--- - Reader the Court fee is correct, hence this issue is decided in
- -- -~
p.a. from the date of agreement dated 05.01.2011 , till its actual realization. "',
(CopyiW~
District & Sessions Judge 01 Delivery
Kapurthala
{Authorised Uls 76 of the
j ;an r:.v~derlce Act, 1877
(~,ner)
District & Sessions Judge
KaDurtnala
'3 SEP 2023 .@ .0 5 'OCT 2023
56
M.QJ. .ftUeci ~
107
~ ~ CfJwlJ
1
~ ~ DECREE
CNR No.PBKP02-000384-2012.
CS No.7419-2013.
Suit No.364 of 16.01.2012.
Date of decision:30.01.2018.
Versus
I
Amended suit for possess~on by way of specific performance
1 3 SEP 2D2t"
57
108
2
latrine with electricity
kitchen, bathroom,
t d Over 15/106 share in Khasra
connections, construe e
. d' Mohalla Baba Deep Singh Nagar
No.4742/5-6, sltl,late In '
48 ft/other owner
East:
North: 60 ft 3 Inch/passage
Total: Rs.10,00,OOOI·
ATTESTED '
(CoDYtna~ini~- -
Oisirk:t &sessions Judge
KaOUrthali
,113 SEP
rw
2~ -
0.
~ ~v 58
~~
It.
<$>...::
~
109
~ 3
,t AND
This suit coming on this day 30 111 day of January, 2018 for
final disposal before me (Ms.Harpreet Kaur, PCS, Add!. Civil Judge
(Sr.Division), Kapurthala in the presence of Sh.B.S.Bajwa, Advocate,
counsel for the plaintiffs, defendant No.1 exparte,
Sh.T.S .DhiIIon,Advocate, counsel for the defendant No.2,
Sh.S.K.Wadhwa,Adv. counsel for the defendants No.3 and the suit of the
plaintiff is hereby decreed partly and plaintiff is entitled to recover an
amount of Rs.5 lacs from the defendant No.1 alongwith interest @
6% p.a. from the date of agreement dated 05.01.2011, till its actual
realization.
Cost of the suit
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 30 'h
day of January, 2018.
Date of Delivery
(Copyi&Miner)
District 8. Sessions Judge
l<aourthala
Certified to~ tru~py 0 5 0CT2023
(COPYi~~iner)
District & Sessions Judge
r;~ffgJ~U$;n~6ct
I<apurthala
(P.uthorised Uls 76 of the
l~,di(.ln Evid0 n ce Act, 1872
, ~ SEP 20'l3 .@
~ ob ~f:- p~ ~'> 59
Ph J-uMl~ 110
" ~ f!u. ~
Ko.mlt. "IVl!iul v~. lYb.lJtt 3'til!il. rd o..~. ~No."P131J~ 12 1
In the cou~
of Ms. Hatpreoetta"UrfPQS~
Addl.e/vil Judge(Senibt divi~idf1), Kapurthala.
! c;~'PBKl'02-000384-2012.
ts No. ,A19.2013.
SuitN,9 .3640f16,01.2012.
j
.It
.... Plaintiff
VersUs . :'1
1. Daljit Sin~h son o~ Kcttiar ~ingh son of PUran Singh resident of
, I ,', I " .
!o II
3.
branch Manager),
o i\ I
or
I " , .. Defendants.
1/
'I
I, . ,': ./
-H·~ ~J~t Kc.up. -7\trJ(,~JY), K~t,
\
\ I
I'
l ~J'~)~_~~~~~~_
r
(COpYing Ex iner)
District & Sessi ns Judge
KaOUrthala
CV
1 3 SEP 2028
~
60
111
UT1Y No.VIRl3 12
. "7"'. T 0;>.
O
Drs.
lYI"t .:>lllf/h .
T~",rnlo. lYe vi Ys. '" Jl , • . by way of specific perforrnan
. Ii posseSSIOn . c~
ded SUIt or . I
Amen . 11 dated 05.01.2011 executed by
re PIllent to .se
of the ag " .\
1
.
in favour 0
f the plaintiff qua the house \
defendant No. I . 15 marIas, comprising 4 rooms,
\
along with land rneasy tng
. with electricity and water
latnne
kitchen, bathroom,
. 6 h e in ~asra
. u~ted over 15/10 . s ar
connectIOns, constr
. . !. . 11 Baba Deep Singh Nagar;
No.4 74215-6, sltuate~ r n Moha . a .
I
Alongwith all rights \appurtenant there to for ' a total sale
. I
ii I Rs.lS,OO,OOO/- . i;lft:er
I I
afl justing Rs.5 !aIms paid as earnest
.
I
,I
I money under the agreement .to sell dated 5.1.2.011 paid in the
,
I
! I presence of witnes~es ·and defendant No.2 and 3 be also
IIIf ordered to join the sale deed to be executed by defendant
__, __ _ ..,. f and from fIhng of the Pl sent SUIt t111 actual realIzatIOn of the
Rs.5,OO,OOOI-
Total: Rs.10,OO,OOOI-
. +: ~ND.' . 'I . ..
h d' +: d
SUlt lor permanent mJunctIon restrammg t e elen ants lram
~
alienating, transferring!or otherwise creating any charge over
AnESTEO
(Copying ~ner)
District &Sessions Judge
Kaourthala t4J
\'3 SEP '~
(
,
62 \
113
BEFORE THE HON'DLE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PIUNCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 428 OF 2023
Dated.O[::.l. .:.'. .1
THANKING YOU
REGARDS