R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 22.1.2009 Satpal & another .......... Appellants Versus Chhote Lal ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order of mine shall dispose of two regular second appeals i.e. RSA Nos. 425 and 426 of 2009 both titled Satpal & another Vs. Chhote Lal, as the common questions of law and facts are involved. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RSA No. 425 of 2009. The plaintiff -appellants by way of this regular second appeal have challenged the judgments and decree dated 7.9.2006 and 21.10.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff- appellants for permanent injunction stands dismissed. The plaintiff-appellants claimed injunction by claiming themselves to be owner in possession of the property by virtue of sale deed said to have been executed by one Sh. Tara Chand, who was said to be R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) 2 owner of the property in dispute by way of inheritance from his father Shiv Lal son of Ganeshi Lal, who was said to be mortgagee under a Muslim owner, who had migrated to Pakistan. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that ownership of Tara Chand over the land in dispute was not proved and, therefore, held that no valid title passed on to the plaintiff-appellants as claimed. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal :- 1. Whether the appellants are bound by judgment and decree dated 24.4.1996 ? 2. Whether the finding with regard to ownership can be recorded in a suit for permanent injunction. If so its effect ? 3. Whether the Courts below have misread the evidence produced by the parties ? The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the learned Courts below committed an error in holding that the plaintiff-appellants were bound by the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1996, even though they were not party to the said judgment and decree nor the defendant-respondent was able to connect the suit property in the said case with that of present suit. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded in suit for injunction could not be a bar to the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellants. It was contended that the findings recorded R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) 3 by the learned Courts below is out come of misreading of evidence produced on record. Appellants claimed that the substantial questions of law as framed deserve to be decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below deserve to be set aside. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Once it is admitted position that the plaintiff-appellants had chosen to file objection in the execution of the decree dated 24.4.1996 by claiming them to be third party and said objections have been dismissed. The learned Courts below were right in holding that the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1996 could be read into evidence against the plaintiffs-appellants. The learned Courts on appreciation of evidence rightly held that Tara Chand was not the owner of the property through whom the plaintiff-appellants were claiming their title and, thus, recorded findings, which are legal and based on appreciation of evidence on record. The substantial questions of law framed, deserve to be answered against the appellants in view of the observations made above. No merit. Dismissed. 22.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE