IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1694 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.4.2010 Rameshwar ....Appellant Versus Savitri ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.5098-C of 2010 C.M. is allowed. Annexures A-1 and A-2 are taken on record. C.M.No.5099-C of 2010 in/and R.S.A.No.1694 of 2010 This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 17.4.2010. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for injunction pleading that he is owner of the suit property on the basis of oral sale supposedly made by the respondent in her favour and that pursuant to the said sale she was put in possession. The appellant denied the existence of any sale and R.S.A.No.1694 of 2010 (O&M) -2- pleaded that a fraud has been perpetrated upon him. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit but in appeal the findings were reversed. In second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that initially the plea of oral sale had been set up by the defendant but during the course of appeal an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was moved by which a document Ex.PX was sought to be produced on record. The said application was allowed and on placing reliance on this document the plea of the respondent was accepted. He further contended that no opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut this document and this document could not be a document in the eyes of law. The sale was executed for a consideration of 20,000/- and in the absence of registration such a document could not be relied upon. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgment. There is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court. Even if this document is not to be considered a document transferring the title in favour of the respondent, yet in view of the fact that the appellant has admitted the said document even though denied its contents, the same can be read as a document establishing the possession of the respondent. The plea of fraud has been raised by the respondent. He has stated that signatures on this document were obtained when he was under the influence of liquor. In view of the possession of the respondent having been found as indicated in this document itself, which is not denied by the appellant, R.S.A.No.1694 of 2010 (O&M) -3- I am of the considered opinion that the suit for injunction has been correctly answered in favour of the respondent. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 30.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss