IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3936 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: November 29, 2011. Vikas Nath and another. ...... APPELLANTS Versus Pawan Kumar and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.11980-C of 2009. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3936 of 2009. The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 18.03.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-defendants against judgment and decree dated 10.01.2008 passed by learned RSA No.3936 of 2011 Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ambala Cantt. vide which suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute and that the sale deed dated 5.2.1996 executed by defendant No.1 Sewa Ram in favour of present appellants-defendants No.2 and 3, is illegal and void and not binding on their rights with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the present appellants-defendants from interfering in the possession of the respondents-plaintiffs over the property in dispute. Plea has been taken that defendant No.1 was claiming himself to be a property dealer and that defendant No.3 is sister of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 is son of defendant No.1 and that sale deed was got executed through power of attorney by defendant No.1 in favour of his own son and sister i.e. vendors without any consideration and that the same is a sham transaction. A suit was also filed by defendant No.1 on 30.07.1999 through his power of attorney and only then the plaintiffs came to know of this fraud. On notice being issued, the suit was contested by defendants and filed a joint written statement. Plea was taken that initially they were tenants and thereafter appellant No.2-defendant No.3 purchased the suit land and the mutation was also sanctioned in her favour. It is also submitted that earlier suit was also withdrawn. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by present appellants- 2 RSA No.3936 of 2011 defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that vendor of present appellants was having no title over the property in dispute and that hence, the present appellants cannot derive any title over the property in dispute on the basis of sale deed executed by defendant No.1 without any right in the same. On the other hand, respondents-plaintiffs have been able to show that they have been continuing in possession of the land in dispute in their own right. Even earlier, suit was filed for possession which was also dismissed vide judgment (Ex.P7). Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 29, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3