TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 1394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shetra decreeing the suit in favour of the Appellants herein was set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated hereunder: 4. The Appellant No. 1 herein along with his mother Kaushalya Rani, vide sale deed dated 17.10.1996, purchased land measuring 41 Kanals 41/2 Marlas being 5/25th share of land measuring 206 Kanals 3 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Dhurala according to jamabandi for the year 1960-1961. Prior to the execution of the said sale deed, the land in question had been leased to the Respondent No. 1 herein, Narinder Nath Kapoor (since deceased) for 20 years from 1966 to 1986. In addition to the abovementioned land,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kurukshetra vide order dated 20.08.2002. The learned Civil Judge held that there was no valid and cogent reason to declare the judgment and order dated 10.02.1988 as illegal, null and void and that the Plaintiff-Appellants were not entitled for the relief of joint possession whatsoever. It was further held that Respondent No. 1 had perfected his title over the suit land by prescription and adverse possession. 8. Aggrieved of the aforementioned judgment and order, the Appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2002/2004 before the Additional District Judge challenging the correctness of the same. The learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 and held that Respondent No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellate court has done and it fell in error in touching the issue of sham transaction and proceeded on the assumption that since the sale deeds were admitted to have been executed, therefore, the Plaintiffs are the owners. Hence, the present appeal. 10. Mr. V.K. Gupta, the learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants-plaintiffs contends that the High Court erred in exercising power Under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by framing pure questions of fact as 'substantial questions of law' and answering the same in favour of the deceased Respondent No. 1 herein. The learned senior Counsel contends that the High Court erred in setting aside the well reasoned judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the facts of the instant case), which relates to the same suit land. The said case was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2010. This non-disclosure on the part of the Appellants shows their intention to mislead this Court. The dismissal of S.L.P. CC No. 7808 of 2010 resulted in the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 133/2002 of 1990 filed by the Appellants. The learned Counsel contends that instant case should have been dismissed at the threshold, as not only have the Appellants concealed material facts from this Court, but also stated incorrect facts in the affidavit. The learned Counsel places reliance on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558 and Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by taking a plea of sham transaction. This plea of the Respondent is not only prohibited by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, but makes the Appellants absolute owner. 19. At the outset, it would be pertinent to mention that the controversy in the instant case is based essentially on the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the parties. It is also worthwhile to mention in this judgment that in the Written Statement, the deceased Respondent No. 1 did not mention the fact of his having been previously inducted as lessee on the suit land by the previous owners vide lease deed dated 06.01.1967 which had taken place prior to the execution of the two sale-deeds dated 17.10.1966 and 07.01.1967 in favour of Appellant No. 1 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22. In the case of Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 349, this Court held that the entries in jamabandi are not proof of title in respect of an immoveable property. In the case of Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 403, this Court observed that entries made by patwari in official record are only for the purpose of records and do not by itself prove the correctness of the same nor can statutory presumption be drawn on the same, particularly, in the absence of corroborative evidence. The Respondent cannot claim to have acquired title over the suit property by pleading adverse possession only in the absence of the name of the Appellants in the revenue records. In the case of Thakur Kishan Singh (Dead) v. ....