RSA No. 4368 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4368 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.02.2011 Niranjan Kaur and another ......Appellants Versus Anil Kumar Kaushal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Chopra,Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Jaideep Verma,Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that Surinder Kumar was the owner in possession of the suit property. Surinder Kumar sold the plot in dispute to the plaintiffs vide sale deed dated 7.3.1990 bearing khasra No. 43//10(0-12). Defendants had no concern with the suit land and they were threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess them from the same. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1 and 2 in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that Krishan Kumar along with other co-owner was in possession of Khasra No. 43//10 (0-12) measuring 6 kanlas 12 marlas. A correction in this regard had RSA No. 4368 of 2010 (O&M) 2 been made in the revenue record. Krishan Kumar on his own behalf and on behalf of his attorney Baldev Singh, Sushil Kumar and Rajinder Kumar sold 15 marlas of land to Gurpreet Singh vide sale deed dated 8.9.1993. The possession of the suit property was handed to the vendee-Gurpreet Singh who vide sale deed dated 12.6.1995 registered on 13.6.1995 sold the said property to defendants No. 1 and 2. Since then the answering defendants were in possession of the property purchased by them. The sale deed relied upon by the plaintiffs was a bogus and sham transaction to defraud the other co-sharers. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs is owner in possession of the suit land?OPP 2.If issue no.1 is proved whether the plaintiff is entitled for the injunction prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers and joint owners qua the suit land?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the material facts from the court. If so its effect?OPD 4A. Whether the defendants are the owners of the suit property as per sale deed dated 12.6.1995 registered on 13.6.95 ?OPD 4B.Whether Surinder Kumar continued to sell area out of the area of the alleged sale deed dated 7.3.1990 alleged by the plaintiffs, covering area in length?OPD 4C.Whether the plaintiffs are relative of Surinder Kumar on RSA No. 4368 of 2010 (O&M) 3 maternal side?OPD 4D.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 4E.Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 4F.Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct?OPD 5.Relief” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 20.8.2008 and, consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No. 1 and 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Exhibit P1 is the sale deed executed by Surinder Kumar in favour of Sharda Rani and Tripta Rani in equal shares qua Khasra No. 43//10(0-12). The boundaries of the property sold by the vendor were also described in the sale deed Exhibit P1 dated 7.3.1990. A perusal of the copy of the jamabandi for the year 1990-91 Exhibit P4 reveals that Khasra number in question was in possession of the purchasers after the sale deed executed by Surinder Kumar in their favour. To the similar effect are the entries in khasra girdwari Exhibit P5 from 27.10.1991 to 28.3.1992. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to Exhibit DZ/C, copy of the khasra girdawari to substantiate his argument that all the parties were co-sharers in the suit land RSA No. 4368 of 2010 (O&M) 4 and,hence, no injunction could be granted against the co-sharers. However, a perusal of Exhibit DZ/C, copy of khasra girdawari from the year 1991 to 1995 reveals that so far as 12 marlas of land bearing khasra No.43//10(0-12) are concerned, the same are in possession of Sharda Rani and Tripta Rani. In the year 1994, an entry on the basis of correction has been made as per fard badar no.6 sanctioned on 15.2.1994 and the total area of Khasra number has been corrected from 12 marlas to 6 kanals 12 marlas. However so far as 6 kanals of land is concerned, the same has been described as vacant/gair mumkin plot. The said entries also reveal that the 12 marlas of land have been cultivated by the plaintiffs. In these circumstances although Gurpreet Singh has also purchased 15 marlas of land out of Khasra No.43//10(6-12) vide sale deed dated 8.9.1993 from Krishan Kumar but the said fact does not lead to the inference that the parties had come in joint possession of the suit land. As per the revenue record, the possession of the plaintiffs on 12 marlas of land purchased by them has been described to be exclusive. The plaintiffs were, thus, liable to protect their possession qua the suit land. Hence, the learned first appellate Court had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE February 21, 2011 arya