2019 INSC 0516
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5962 OF 2010
Jaswant Singh & Ors.     .....Appellants
Versus
Jaspal Singh & Ors.                            .....Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
The   judgment   dated   27.10.2009   passed   by   the   High   Court
of  Punjab  and Haryana  at Chandigarh in RSA  No. 3609 of  1998
(O&M) is called into question in this appeal by  the unsuccessful
defendants. 
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that Jaspal Singh,
Plaintiff   No.1   in   the   present   suit,   i.e.   O.S.   No.   388   of   1986
1

(Respondent No.1 herein), had been residing in West Germany (as
it   then   was)   and   had   authorised   Kidar   Singh   son   of   Hem   Raj   to
do   all   acts   and   to   file   or   defend   any   suit   regarding   the   suit
property   vide   special   power   of   attorney.     The   present   suit   was
filed   by   Kidar   Singh   on   behalf   of   Plaintiff   No.   1   for   declaration
that   the   decree   dated   29.07.1983   in   Civil   Suit   No.   18   of   1983
titled as   Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. Jaspal Singh , decided by the
Sub­Judge, II nd
  Class, Panipat, holding Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in
the   present   suit   (the   appellants   herein)   to   be   the   owners   in
possession   of   the   suit   land,   was   illegal,   null   and   void,   and   not
binding on Plaintiff No. 1, and that the registered sale deed dated
05.06.1984 in respect of the suit land executed by Plaintiff No. 1
in   favour   of   Defendant   Nos.   4   to   10   in   the   present   suit   is   legal
and binding on all persons including Defendant Nos. 1 to 3.  The
consequential   relief   of   injunction   was   also   sought   for.   Though
Plaintiff   No.   1   at   some   point   got   the   present   suit   dismissed   as
withdrawn,   Defendant   Nos.   4   to   10   were   later   transposed   as
plaintiffs,   and   Plaintiff   No.   9   impleaded,   and   proceedings   in   the
suit   continued.   The   Trial   Court   decreed   the   suit.     The   decree   of
the Trial Court was confirmed by the First Appellate Court as well
2

as by the Second Appellate Court. This appeal is presented before
us as against the concurrent findings of three courts.     
3. All   the   Courts   have   concurrently   concluded   that   the
judgment and decree dated 29.07.1983 passed in Civil Suit No.18
of  1983 by  the Sub­Judge, II nd
  Class, Panipat  is illegal and does
not bind the plaintiffs (the respondents herein).  The Courts have
held that the same is a collusive decree between the plaintiffs and
the defendants in the said suit. 
4. Mr. Vinay Navare, learned senior counsel for the appellants,
and   Mr.   Brijender   Chahar,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for
the   respondents,   have   taken   us   through   the   entire   material   on
record and argued in support of their respective cases.  
5. All   the   three   Courts,   on   facts,   have   rightly   concluded   that
the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 18 of 1983 was
illegal, and hence not binding on the plaintiffs. A collusive decree
was   obtained   by   the   plaintiffs   in   Civil   Suit   No.   18   of   1983
(Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the present suit) by agreeing to deposit
part of  the  pre­emption  money   in certain  pre­emption  suits filed
by   Jaspal   Singh   (Plaintiff   No.   1   in   the   present   suit),   in   lieu   of
acquiring   rights   in   the   suit   property.   Thus,   the   decree   created
3

new rights in the suit property in favour of Defendant Nos. 1 to 3,
virtually amounting to a sale deed, and seems to have been used
as   a   mode   to   transfer   property   without   a   valid   sale   deed.     It   is
also found that Plaintiff No. 1 Jaspal Singh had appeared in the
said   suit   voluntarily,   without   the   issuance   of   summons   to   him,
and on the date of appearance, hurriedly admitted the entire case
of   the   plaintiffs   therein,   consequent   to   which   the   suit   was
decreed.     Despite   such   collusive   decree,   the   suit   property
continued to be in the name of the original owner, Plaintiff No. 1
Jaspal   Singh,   who   also   continued   to   be   in   possession   thereof.
Plaintiff   Nos.  2  to   9  in   the   present  suit,   who   had   purchased   the
suit   property   from   Plaintiff   No.   1   vide   sale   deed   dated
05.06.1984,   were   held   to   be   bona   fide   purchasers   for   valuable
consideration. This was also in light of the circumstance that the
mutation pursuant to the judgment and decree dated 29.7.1983
was   sanctioned   after   the   execution   of   the   sale   deed   by   Plaintiff
No.   1   in   favour   of   Plaintiff   Nos.   2   to   9.   Possession   of   the   suit
property had also been handed over to Plaintiff Nos. 2 to 9, but it
seems   that   during   the   pendency   of   the   matter   they   were
dispossessed   of   the   same   by   virtue   of   an   order   passed   by   the
4

Executive Magistrate. We do not find any valid reason to disagree
with the reasons and conclusions arrived at by the Courts below.
6. Be   that   as   it   may,   since   we   find   that   all   the   three   Courts
have concurrently and rightly concluded in favour of the plaintiffs
and   consequently   decreed  O.S.  No.   388  of   1986,  no   interference
is called for.  Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
..........................................J.
(N.V. Ramana)
............................................J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
New Delhi;
May 07, 2019.  
         
5