C.M.Nos.15127-28-C of 2010 in RSA No.5137 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos.15127-28-C of 2010 in RSA No.5137 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 14, 2011 Ajit Singh Lalotra .....Appellant v. Babu Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.15127-C of 2010 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 66 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.15128-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.5137 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.1.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 5.11.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Pathankot, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by C.M.Nos.15127-28-C of 2010 in RSA No.5137 of 2010(O&M) -2- learned Courts below. Briefly stated appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for mere declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 26.6.1986 and mutation No.1600 dated 16.7.1998 are illegal, null and void being beyond the share of defendant no.1 in the entire land bearing khasra No.28R/22/1/3, fully described in the headnote of the plaint and the same is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff with consequential relief of injunction. It has been averred that sale deed dated 26.6.1986 executed by respondent-defendant no.1 in favour of respondent-defendant no.4 out of total land is beyond his share. Further contends that plaintiff had purchased 3 marlas of land out of said khasra number from respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 vide sale deed dated 16.6.1998. Hence, it is contended that earlier sale-deed, which is allegedly beyond the share of respondent no.1 is not binding upon his rights. On notice being issued, suit was contested by respondents- defendants no.1 to 3 denying the very execution of sale-deed in favour of appellant-plaintiff. Respondent no.4 has also denied the execution of the sale deed. On appreciation of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that even in the written statement filed by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 as well as by respondent-defendant no.4, execution of sale deed dated 26.6.1986 in favour of respondent-defendant no.4 has been denied. C.M.Nos.15127-28-C of 2010 in RSA No.5137 of 2010(O&M) -3- He has also shown to this Court at the time of arguments, copies of the written statements by both the sets of respondents. However, though respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 has denied the said sale deed in favour of respondent no.4, however, if written statement as a whole filed by respondent-defendant no.4 is considered, it cannot be said that respondent- defendant no.4 has denied execution of sale deed in his favour by respondent-defendant no.1. There seems to be some typographical mistake in one line in para no.3 of the written statement. However, respondent- defendant no.4 has denied that sale-deed in his favour by respondent- defendant no.1 is illegal and void on any ground. He has also denied that the sale-deed is beyond the share of respondent-defendant no.1. It is also denied that mutation entered pursuant to the said sale deed is null and void. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced by present appellant-plaintiff before learned trial Court despite several opportunities. Only photo-copy of sale-deed in favour of appellant-plaintiff has been placed on record. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by appellant-plaintiff before learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, which was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that he be permitted to prove the sale-deed by way of additional affidavit. However, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that even if it is taken that subsequent sale-deed dated 16.6.1998 was executed in favour of present appellant-plaintiff by respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 out of total khasra number, he only becomes co-sharer alongwith other co-sharers and hence, he has stepped into the shoes of his vendor and should have filed suit for partition. However, he filed suit for getting the sale-deed in favour of C.M.Nos.15127-28-C of 2010 in RSA No.5137 of 2010(O&M) -4- respondent-defendant no.4 by another co-sharer, i.e., respondent -defendant no.1, set aside. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 14.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge