RSA No.417 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.1278-C of 2008 & RSA No.417 of 2008 Decided on : 04.11.2009 Daya Nand ... Appellant versus Tale Ram & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 3 to 7. Mr. A.K.Bura, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for prohibitory injunction against the respondents while allowing the counter claim of the appellant regarding her possession over the disputed house. It is not disputed that the property in dispute was owned by Amar Singh. The contesting respondents are his daughters. The appellant's claim is that he has purchased the property in dispute from the nephew of Amar Singh. Both the Courts below found that the said nephew had no RSA No.417 of 2008 -2- right title in the interest of property. Any alienation made by him would not have any effect on the rights of the contesting respondents. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the respondent No.2 was owner of the disputed house? ii)Whether the respondent No.2 has executed an agreement to sell the said house in dispute in favour of the appellant? iii)Whether the respondent No.2 executed a receipt dt. 28.08.2003 regarding receipt of earnest money? iv)Whether Rakesh is legally entitled to transfer his house in favour of the respondent No.2? v)Whether the appellant is owner of the disputed house? vi)Whether counter claim filed by the respondents is maintainable? All the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of CPC. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. November 04, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE