IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2344 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.3.2010 Paramjit Singh. ....... Appellant. Versus Parkash Chand and another. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri R.S.Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. He had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 – Parkash Chand from selling to defendant no.2- Simru or any body else the suit property which is ancestral and joint. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that defendant no.1 is his uncle; that Chanda Ram, his grand-father was owner of the suit property; that Chanda Ram died about twenty years back leaving behind defendant no.1 and his father-Kishan Chand along with two daughters; that after the death of Chanda Ram, the suit property was inherited by his legal heirs; that R.S.A.No.2344 of 2009 -2- .... Kishan Chand had died in the year 1990 and his share in the suit property devolved upon the plaintiff and, thus, he became joint owner in possession along with defendant no.1 and others and was entitled to 1/4th share; that defendant no.1 was bent upon to alienate the suit property which he cannot do. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement contesting the suit. A number of preliminary objections were raised. The relation of the plaintiff with defendant no.1 was, however, admitted, but it was pleaded that the legal heirs of Chanda Ram were not correctly described. It was further pleaded that Chanda Ram was not the owner of the suit property and that father of the plaintiff as well as Tej Kaur and Charan Kaur did not inherit the same. It was averred that defendant no.1 was exclusive owner of the suit property and he had sold the same vide agreement dated 6.2.1998 for a valuable consideration of Rs.70,000/- to Narinder Mohan, who was put in possession thereof. It was further averred that thereafter Narinder Mohan had constructed one room and a latrine with old bricks and the plaintiff had got no concern with the suit property. As many as seven issues were framed and after appraisal of the evidence on record, Civil Judge (Junior Divisin), Jalandhar dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2000. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment & decree dated 26.11.2008. Hence, this appeal. R.S.A.No.2344 of 2009 -3- .... I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. Both the Courts have held that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit property which belonged to defendant no.1, who had validly sold the same to Narinder Mohan. The witnesses produced by the defendants supported their case and it was proved that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was paid by Narinder Mohan to the vendor, i.e., defendant no.1. The plaintiff had failed to establish even the remotest connection with the suit property. He could not produce any evidence to show that the suit property belonged to Chanda Ram, his grand- father and that he had a share in it. In such an eventuality when there was no visible interest demonstrated by the plaintiff in the suit property, the whole suit was apparently misconceived and both the Courts have rightly dismissed it. No question of law,much less a substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for consideration of this Court. Consequently, the appeal is held to be without any merit and is dismissed. March 23,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge