- (1.) Both the writ petitions are connected and they seek for adjudication in respect of the Financial Commissioner's orders passed in respect of the very same property. CWP No.6349 of 1988 is at the instance of the legal representative of one Daulat Ram and CWP No.8032 of 1988 is at the instance of purchaser from Daulat Ram. The issue involved in the case is the correctness of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order of correction made in the sale certificate issued jointly in the name of Daulat Ram and Gian Chand.
(2.) It appears that after the initial amount that stood credited to Daulat Ram at the time of public auction, the balance of money, which was to be paid, had been paid by Daulat Ram's nephew, who was Gian Chand and a sale certificate had also been issued subsequently on 18.08.1965 in the names of both Gian Chand and Daulat Ram. It is an admitted fact that an application for modification of the sale certificate was filed by Daulat Ram before the Chief Sales Commissioner, Punjab, under Section 10 of the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act of 1976, (for short, 'the 1976 Act') contending that the property had been indeed purchased only by Daulat Ram, but his nephew Gian Chand had, while making remittance on his behalf, fraudulently made it appear as though, he was remitting the amount in his own right and had secured a joint sale certificate to be issued without his knowledge or concurrence. It is seen from the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner on 21.08.1979 that notice had been issued to Gian Chand, but he did not appear. He was consequently set ex parte and the Chief Sales Commissioner accepted the contention of Daulat Ram and ordered the rectification of the sale certificate issued jointly and directed that the sale certificate shall bear the name of Daulat Ram only. On the basis of the sale certificate, Daulat Ram had filed a civil suit for declaration and for injunction against Gian Chand in Civil Suit No.149 of 1978 instituted on 18.11.1978. Before the conclusion of trial, it appears, Gian Chand had challenged the order passed by the Chief Sales Commissioner and sought for its quashment by approaching this Court in CWP No.124 of 1980. The writ petition was disposed off on 17.03.1980 directing the petitioner to approach the Chief Sales Commissioner for appropriate orders. The civil suit was disposed off subsequently after full contest on 22.12.1980. The manner of disposal, in my view, has an important bearing to the case, for, the issues raised in the writ petition were surely relevant for several of the contentious issues before the authorities.
(3.) Before the Civil Court, no doubt the corrected sale certificate was alone relied upon but Daulat Ram had taken a contention that the original sale certificate that was taken jointly was an act of fraud by Gian Chand. He asserted that the property had been remaining only in his possession. The defendant Gian Chand was contending that he had paid Rs.2,250/- being a larger slice of consideration and the sale certificate which was originally issued was actually in recognition of the joint entitlement. Two other important contentions were taken by Gian Chand, namely, the Civil Court itself did not have jurisdiction and the suit was barred by limitation since the sale certificate had been issued in the year 1965 initially and the issue of who was entitled to the property could not be an issue for adjudication before the Civil Court. The issue No.1 in the suit was the issue of jurisdiction. Issue No.2 was the issue of limitation and the issue No.5 was whether the plaintiff was the sole owner of the disputed shop. The trial Court found the onus of proof of issues No.1 and 2 were on the defendant and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on title and since the suit itself had been filed only after obtaining a correction in the sale certificate, it had not been barred by limitation. On a more important issue relating to ownership, the Court relied on not merely on the amended sale certificate but held that Gian Chand had committed a fraud and taken the certificate jointly. He referred to the fact that the offer for payment had been made only by Daulat Ram and he was alone in possession of the property. This judgment became final as regards the ownership of the property which was affirmed by the Civil Court on the basis of the amended sale certificate.;