IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 989 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 25, 2009 Lala Ram .....Appellant Versus Smt. Hoshiari .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff- appellant so as to restrain the defendant-respondent from interfering in his possession over the suit property and from illegal and forcible dispossession from the same, was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, which judgment and decree was upheld by Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, while dismissing the first appeal filed by the appellant, who is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiff, he was owner in possession of the suit property measuring 4 Kanals situated within the revenue R.S.A. No. 989 of 2009 -2- estate of Sohna and the defendant had no interest, right or title thereto but she, being a strong headed lady, was bent upon to dispossess him from the same forcibly. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer for the grant of decree for permanent injunction. The defendant opposed the suit and asserted that she had purchased a part of the suit land, measuring 3 Kanals 16 Marlas, alongwith other land, measuring 4 Marlas, from the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 7.7.1989 and since then she was in the possession thereof as absolute owner. The sale deed was challenged by the plaintiff through his minor sons but the said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and even the first appeal dismissed by the appellate Court. The plaintiff intentionally concealed these facts and, therefore, he was not entitled to the relief of injunction. The sole issue for determination in the present second appeal is as to whether the defendant had purchased 3 Kanals 16 Marlas of suit land alongwith other land measuring 4 Kanals from the plaintiff by way of registered sale deed dated 7.7.1989 or not. Copy of the sale deed has been brought on record by the defendant as Ex.D2. The defendant had examined her husband- Jagdish Chand, her attorney, as DW1, besides examining DW2 R.S.A. No. 989 of 2009 -3- Dharam Pal, an attesting eye witness of the sale deed. According to the testimony of DW2-Dharam Pal, the sale deed Ex.D2 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant and he signed the same as an attesting witness. The sale deed was got typed from a Deed Writer, who after typing, read over the same and explained the contents to the parties. The sale deed was, thereafter, put up before the Sub Registrar for registration, who also read over and explained the sale deed to the parties. On the other hand, the plaintiff simply denied the execution of the sale deed. Apart from examining himself as PW1, the plaintiff did not examine any other witness. His simple denial of having not executed the registered sale deed would not be sufficient to hold that no such sale deed had ever been executed. The sale deed Ex.D2 was challenged by Harpal and Mahender, minor sons of the plaintiff by way of a civil suit on the ground that the suit property belonged to joint Hindu family and so their father had no right to alienate the same. Initially, the plaintiff, who stood impleaded as defendant No.2 in the said suit, appeared therein but later on he decided not to contest the same. He was proceeded against ex parte. The suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon on 19.2.1996. The appeal against the said decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon on 3.11.1999. The defendant has brought R.S.A. No. 989 of 2009 -4- the aforementioned judgments and decrees on the record of the present suit as Exs. D4 and D5, respectively. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below, are based on proper appreciation of the evidence examined by the parties. These findings are neither perverse nor they suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellant, do not arise for consideration. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 25, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO