Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DEV RAJ (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HARBANS SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1566 1996 SCC (3) 596
JT 1996 (6) 225 1996 SCALE (2)862
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard counsel on both sides.
The appellant admittedly is the original owner of an
extent of 18 canals and marlas of land. In his suit for
declaration and injunction, the Trial Court decreed the
suit, but on appeal, it was reversed. The High Court of
Punjab and Haryana in Second Appeal No.600/95 on March 15,
1995 confirmed the same.
The admitted facts are that the appellant being the
owner, had sold the property to the respondent. By the date
of the sale, admittedly, it was subject to hypothecation
with a bank for a sum of Rs.5,OOO/- that the respondent had
to discharge. The appellant had paid three installments, as
evidenced by the statement of Gurdial Singh, the clerk of
the Primary Agricultural Bank, Hoshiarpur. It was also
proved through his evidence that Ranjit Singh had paid the
amount in three instalments; one in the year 1975, other in
December, 1976 and the third one in December, 1977. One
payment was also made by Baljit Singh and final payment was
made by the appellant himself on December 18, 1979. It is,
thus, his case that he has discharged the loan taken by him,
though the sale was executed in favour of the respondent.
The sale being a conditional sale, as the respondent had not
complied with the conditions, he is not bound by the sale.
He has also pleaded that he perfected his title by adverse
possession. The respondent pleaded in the written statement
that the sale was for consideration and he had got the sale
transferred in his name; he has legal possession; and,
therefore, injunction cannot be granted. The trial Court
relied upon the payments made by Ranjit Singh s/o the
appellant and that he had paid the amount. On that basis,
the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondents
have not discharged the loan.
In view of the specific evidence of Gurdial Singh,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
clerk of the Bank, it is obvious that the entire loan was
discharged by the appellant himself. It is not the case of
the appellant that he had advanced the money to the
respondent for discharge and on his behalf, the appellant
had paid the debt to the Bank. In that view of the matter,
it is obvious that the sale being a conditional sale, the
respondent had not complied with the condition, the sale
became voidable which is not in dispute. In all the mutation
entries in the Revenue Records, the name of the appellant
continued as the owner. If really, the respondent had
discharged the loans, one would expect that he would have
got his name mutated in the Revenue Records. He never made
such an attempt which would clearly show that he had not
discharged the loan to the Primary Bank subject to which the
sale was made. The appellate Court and the High Court have
not approached the problem in the proper perspective in
reversing the decree of the trial Court.
The appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the High
Court in Second Appeal and that of the appellate Court are
set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The suit
stands decreed as prayed for. No costs.