R.S.A. No. 1652 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1652 of 1989 Date of Decision: 9.9.2008 Kashmir Singh ...Appellant. Versus Hamir Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Being unsuccessful in a suit for permanent injunction before the courts below, the plaintiff by way of present regular second appeal has challenged the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1989 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 22.1.1987 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was dismissed. Adumbrated, the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession of the land measuring 27 kanals situated in village Kanian Wali as detailed in the head note of the plaint on the averments that in the year 1980, Jawahar R.S.A. No. 1652 of 1989 -2- Singh, Karnail Kaur and Gurprit Singh executed an agreement to sell the same to him. It was pleaded that Harnam Singh, father of Jawahar Singh, executed a sale-deed in favour of the defendant who had no right to do so because Jawahar Singh, Karnail Singh and Gurprit Singh had already become owners of the suit land. It was further pleaded that the report of possession recorded by the Patwari in the roznamcha dated 6.5.1985 on the basis of order dated 17.10.1974 passed by the Collector, Muktsar was a sham transaction and was not binding on the plaintiff as he was not a party in those proceedings. The plaintiff requested the defendant to admit his claim but to no avail and that gave rise to the filing of the aforesaid suit. The said suit was resisted by the defendant who filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the defendant had purchased the suit land from Harnam Singh by paying the amount of sale consideration when it was in possession of Kartar Singh and his sons as mortgagees and an application for getting the same redeemed was made by the plaintiff to the Collector, who vide order dated 17.10.1974 allowed the said application. It was further pleaded that the suit for declaration filed by Kartar Singh mortgagee was dismissed on 31.1.1976 and thereafter, the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.1976 was also dismissed and the order dated 17.10.1974 passed by the Collector for redemption had attained finality. It was also pleaded that on coming to know that Jawahar Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Smt. Karnail Kaur had become owners of the suit land on the basis of the court decree, the defendant filed a civil suit for setting aside the said decree which was declared as R.S.A. No. 1652 of 1989 -3- null and void on 2.11.1981 by the trial court and the appeal against the said judgment was also dismissed and the defendant was declared to be the owner of the suit land. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for the dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute and is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is a figure head? If so, to what effect? OPD 3. Relief.” The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, returned the findings on issue No.1 against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his possession over the suit land in any manner and, therefore, was not entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Further, the trial court while deciding issue No.2 in favour of the defendant held that the plaintiff had filed the suit only as a figure head at the instance of Jawahar Singh etc. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.1987. On appeal, the first appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.1989. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant made valiant efforts to R.S.A. No. 1652 of 1989 -4- persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any misreading or misappreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The lower appellate court had returned a finding that the defendant had purchased the suit land from one Harnam Singh who was owner of the same on the basis of a sale-deed and got the suit land redeemed from the mortgagees. Further, the Court recorded that physical possession was also delivered to the defendant-respondent as per rapat roznamcha (Ex.D1). Still further, the courts below had recorded a finding of fact that the agreement to sell and also his possession over the suit land had not been proved by the plaintiff . In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. September 9, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE