RSA No.2534 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2534 of 2010 Date of decision: July 27, 2011. Rajbir ... Appellant(s) v. Dalip Singh & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff states that the prayer for grant of permanent injunction has been declined to the plaintiff-appellant only on the ground that both the courts have decided the question of title against the appellant-plaintiff. Counsel states that issue No.1 was decided against the appellant-plaintiff and in favour of the respondent-defendant. Counsel states that he be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a suit for declaration to the effect that sale deed Ex.PW2/B is a valid document whereby ownership was conveyed to the appellant-plaintiff. Counsel states that the lower appellate court has only stated as under:- “18. ... More so in the present case it is established that no RSA No.2534 of 2010 -: 2 :- possession was delivered to the plaintiffs at the time of sale deed Ex.PW2/B and it was mere a paper transaction between the parties as the entire property including the house in dispute was purchased by the defendant No.1 with his three brothers including the father of the plaintiffs and they have raised construction on their respective portions since long. ...” Counsel states that observations of the courts below qua the title were primarily for determination of the possession. Appellant-plaintiff has based his claim on the basis of sale deed Ex.PW2/B executed by Kanshi Ram on 2.3.2001 whereas defendants took a categoric plea that Kanshi Ram could not sell the property as in the year 1960 same property was sold to the respondent-defendants and property being less than Rs.100/- of value, never required registration. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has stated that henceforth he will not question the possession of the defendants but he will be within his right to file a suit for declaration saying that the sale deed dated 2.3.2001 executed by Kanshi Ram is a valid document and is not eclipsed by any sale deed executed by Kanshi Ram in favour of the respondent-defendants in the year 1960. Counsel further states that in suit for declaration, he will seek a consequential relief that he be put into the possession of the suit property. After hearing Counsel for the parties and perusing the judgments of both the courts below, this Court is primarily of the view that the question regarding title, as to which sale deed will get precedence, has not been decided and whether any sale deed was executed in the year 1960 in favour of the defendant, has not been proved, therefore, present appeal is disposed of by permitting the appellant-plaintiff to withdraw his suit with RSA No.2534 of 2010 -: 3 :- liberty to file a fresh suit for declaration and consequential relief of possession. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 27, 2011. Judge kadyan