RSA No.3921 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3921 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.05.2009 Surinder Singh ..Appellant Vs. Rajinder Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harmanjit Singh, Advocate, for the Caveator/respondent. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.7.2008 passed by the learned courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking possession by way of partition of plot/building detailed in the head-note of the plaint, stands dismissed. The case set up by the plaintiff/appellant was that the plot in RSA No.3921 of 2008 2 dispute was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and defendant and was in possession of plaintiff's son under the settlement between the plaintiff and defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant on the plea that the plaintiff had no right or interest in the property in dispute which was purchased by the defendant by selling plot measuring 300 sq. yards situated within the Municipal limits of Ludhiana. The building was said to have been constructed by the defendant. It was claimed that though the sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant/respondent, the plaintiff committed forgery to insert his name in the sale deed with the connivance of the official. Learned courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff was not entitled to possession by way of partition, as the plot was exclusively owned by the defendant/respondent. Concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the learned courts below that the name of the plaintiff was got entered in the sale deed by forgery. The plot was exclusively purchased and owned by the defendant. Findings of ownership have been recorded on appreciation of evidence especially the fact that the vendor denied having initialed the addition inserting the name of the plaintiff in the sale deed. Handwriting Expert was also produced who opined that the initials of the vendor on the insertions made, qua the name of the appellant were actually not signed by the vendor and it was an act of forgery. Mr.Harit Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RSA No.3921 of 2008 3 appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this court: 1. Whether the finding recorded by the learned courts below holding that the claim of the appellant was not genuine was the outcome of misreading of evidence and in any case could not have been recorded for want of issue? 2. Whether the learned courts below have misread the oral and documentary evidence to non-suit the appellant, thus, the findings recorded are perverse? Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the substantial questions of law contends that the learned courts below erred in law in recording a finding that the name of the appellant was entered in the sale deed by way of forgery though no issue framed. Judgment, therefore, was claimed to be perverse. The plea of the appellant cannot be accepted. It is the settled law that when the parties are aware of the case set up by the parties and evidence is led to prove their stand. The findings recorded cannot be challenged, merely because no specific issue on the said question is framed. In any case, the dispute was covered under issue No.1 which was comprehensive enough to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter contended that the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is the outcome of misreading of evidence. In support of this contention learned counsel for the appellant contends that the name of the appellant was duly incorporated in the sale deed before it was registered, in the absence the sale deed having RSA No.3921 of 2008 4 been set aside he is the registered owner of the property, therefore, was entitled to maintain the suit for possession. Learned counsel made reference to the statement made by PW 3 to contend that the case set up by the plaintiff stood proved. This plea also cannot be accepted. The vendor as well as the attesting witnesses to the sale deed were examined, where a specific stand was taken by Smt.Sarabjit Kaur that the property in dispute was sold to Rajinder Singh i.e. the defendant and no addition of the name of the appellant was made in the sale deed. She specifically stated that addition was made afterwards which was not inserted when sale deed was executed. She also denied her signatures beneath addition to be not her. In the cross- examination she has stated that she studied up to primary and could only read and write Punjabi. A bare look at the admitted signatures, and one written beneath the addition shows that it is not by the same person. While admitted signatures show that the vendor was semi-literate whereas the signatures beneath addition looks to be one of well educated. Even the attesting witnesses to the sale deed categorically stated that Surinder Singh's name was not included in the sale deed and addition was made afterward. Specific evidence was led to prove that the property was sold to Rajinder Singh only. Shri Kamlesh who scribed the agreement also stated that there was no name of appellant in the sale deed at the time of its execution. This fact was further supported by an official who appeared from the office of Sub Registrar to produce the register, which also showed the property to have been sold to Rajinder Singh alone. RSA No.3921 of 2008 5 On appreciation of evidence the learned courts below have held that the appellant/plaintiff was not party to the sale deed. Findings recorded cannot be said to be the outcome of misreading of evidence. It is well settled law that merely because some other view can be taken, is not a ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned courts below. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 18.05.2009 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge