Regular Second Appeal No. 2138 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2138 of 2007 Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 *** Dalbir Singh .. Appellant VS. Parkash Singh & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the caveators. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff's appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff- appellant is not entitled to seek restraint order against the respondent- defendant No.1 from enjoying the suit property which he purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 8.12.1999 executed by respondents No.2 to 5. Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of appeal would arise. The plaintiff failed to prove that Mohinder Singh, in whose shoes the plaintiff alleged to have stepped into by dint of sale-deed dated 5.11.1998, was ever competent to alienate the roof rights of the shop in dispute in favour of the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff failed to prove that the disputed shops were constructed on the property purchased by Mohinder Singh and Smt. Puro jointly and his attempt to produce on record the copy of sale deed dated 30.10.1962 by way of additional evidence has also failed by observing that the plaintiff not only failed to produce the same at the relevant time despite Regular Second Appeal No. 2138 of 2007 2 of the knowledge of its existence at the appropriate stage, but also failed to prove the same to be the sale of the property, which is subject matter of the suit. It is apt to refer to the findings returned by the learned First Appellate Court below while affirming the findings of the learned Trial Court on different issues, which read thus:- “12. Now coming to the present appeal, it is the stand of the appellant that disputed property was purchased by Mohinder singh and Smt. Puro jointly. They had jointly constructed four shops on this property. Since Mohinder Singh had ½ share in this property, so he sold roof of these shops to appellant vide sale deed Ex.D2. Now respondent No.1 is alleging that he has purchased the disputed shop from respondent no.2 to 5 and he is threatening to demolish this shop forcibly and illegally. It is lastly prayed by appellant that respondents may be restrained from demolishing or alienating the said shop. From the perusal of evidence of both the parties, as discussed in earlier part of this judgment, it is proved on record that the disputed property had already been sold by respondent nos.2 to 5 in favour of respondent no.1. Vide sale deed Ex.D6 dt. 8.12.1999. appellant has failed to prove on record, as to how, Mohinder singh had ½ share with regard to the said shops including the disputed shops. He could not prove on record that the disputed shops were constructed on the property purchased by Mohinder Singh and Smt. Puro jointly. So now question arises as to what right Mohinder Singh had, to alienate the roof of said shops including that of disputed shop. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that since no partition was effected between Mohinder singh and Puro, so shop in dispute could not be alienated by respondent nos. 2 to 5. If for arguments sake, it is presumed that Mohinder Singh was co-sharer in the disputed property and Regular Second Appeal No. 2138 of 2007 3 partition had not taken place qua this property, then question arises as to how Mohinder Singh has sold roof of the entire shops to the appellant. Plaintiff has to take stand/ succeed on his own legs and he cannot take advantage of the weakness of evidence of defendant. Relief of injunction is equitable relief and the person who seeks this relief must come to the Court with clean hands. None can be allowed to seek the aid of the Court to protect his unlawful possession. So far as relief to alienate the disputed shop is concerned, it has become infructuous as the said shop has already been sold. So far demolish the said shop is concerned, appellant does not deserve this relief as he has failed to prove on record that Mohinder Singh had any right qua the disputed shop or that the said shop/ shops were constructed on the property jointly purchased by Mohinder Singh and Smt. Puro. In view of all these circumstances, Ld. Lower court has rightly decided all the issues and has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant. Fidnings of Ld. Lower court on all the issues are affirmed. Impugned judgment/ decree passed by ld. Lower Court does not call for any interference of this Appellate Court. This appeal being devoid of any merit deserves dismissal.” There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 16,2009 Jiten