R.S.A. No. 1123 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1123 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.3.2009 Smt. Surjit Kaur ....Appellant Versus Shri Desa Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.Ms. No. 3788-89-C of 2009 This application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved for placing on record certain documents which are claimed to be relevant for decision of the case. However, no application under Section 151 CPC is competent for placing on record documents in the regular second appeal, as the only remedy available to the parties is under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No averments have been made in the application to justify that additional evidence is required to be adduced in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Simply an application has been moved for placing on record certain documents without showing relevance or connection. R.S.A. No. 1123 of 2006 (O&M) -2- Consequently, the C.M. is dismissed as not maintainable. R.S.A. No. 1123 of 2006 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.10.2005 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on the plea that she was owner in possession of the property and, therefore, was entitled to injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from executing any sale deed in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4, stands dismissed. The plaintiff claimed ownership on the basis of alleged family settlement which was said to have been executed in her favour. However, the learned Courts below on the basis of evidence on record have been pleased to record a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove family settlement. The learned Courts below further held that as she was not in possession of the property in dispute, she was not entitled to injunction prayed for, especially when she has failed to prove the ownership over the suit land, as claimed in the suit. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence, thus, perverse, in holding that appellant was not owner in possession of the suit land? 2. Whether the sale deed dated 16.5.1996 executed by Desa Singh was illegal, wrong and without any consideration, thus, null and void and not binding on the rights of the appellant?” The learned counsel for the appellant contends that appellant R.S.A. No. 1123 of 2006 (O&M) -3- being daughter, had entered into family settlement vide which the ownership of land was transferred in favour of the plaintiff/appellant, however, this aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the learned Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that in the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff/appellant, against defendant No. 1 restraining him from alienating the suit property, the order was passed restraining him from alienating the property, however, in spite of injunction, the suit property was transferred in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4. Therefore, the finding of the learned Courts below being perverse is liable to be reversed. It is also the case of the appellant that a sum of Rs.91,000/- was taken as loan by defendants No. 2 to 4 from defendant No. 1 prior to executing the sale deed and, therefore, the execution was outcome of fraud and mis-representation, as there was no possibility of sale to a person who had borrowed the money from vendor. However, on consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Once the plaintiff/appellant failed to prove the family settlement to claim ownership, she had no right in the property, and once it was held that she was not in possession of the property in dispute, the learned Courts below were right in holding that she was not entitled to injunction. The raised substantial questions of law do not arise for consideration in this appeal. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge March 24, 2009 R.S.