IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 295 of 1985 Date of Decision : April 11, 2008 Mool Chand ....Appellant Versus Nanak Chand and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction as consequential relief thereof filed by the plaintiff-appellant was decreed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Faridabad on 5.6.1984. This decision was challenged by the defendants by filing first appeal, which was accepted by learned District Judge, Faridabad on 17.12.1984. Judgement and decree passed by the learned trial Court was set aside and so also the suit with costs throughout. The plaintiff-appellant then chosen to file the present second appeal. The dispute between the parties relates to khasra No. 1065. The plaintiff claimed that his father Kewal had purchased half share in the same on February 02, 1944 for an amount of Rs. 75/- from Ganga Regular Second Appeal No. 295 of 1985 -2- Ram, father of Bhagwati-defendant/respondent No. 2. After the death of aforementioned Kewal, the plaintiff appellant and his brother Lala Ram divided their property, including the aforementioned property, between themselves and the land in question fell to the share of the plaintiff. In the year 1980, the plaintiff-appellant allowed defendant-respondent No. 1 to occupy the property in question as a licencee. Later on he asked him to vacate the same. On his refusal to do so, he filed the suit for delivery of possession by issuance of a mandatory injunction. The suit was opposed by the defendants-respondents on the ground that the suit property was never sold to the father of the plaintiff- appellant and defendant No. 1 had been inducted as a licencee by defendant No. 2 on the said property. Before the plaintiff could succeed in getting the property in question from defendant-respondent No. 1, he was required to establish that there was a valid sale-deed executed by the father of defendant No. 2 in favour of father of the plaintiff. The so called sale-deed dated February 02, 1944 was for a consideration of Rs. 75/-, therefore it was not required to be registered. Claiming that the sale-deed in question had been lost, the plaintiff made an effort to bring on record its secondary evidence. He produced the register of the Deed Writer, which contained extract Ex.PW1/1 regarding another sale-deed dated 2.2.1944 by Ganga Ram in favour of Tek Chand regarding a kacha house of which the boundaries were stated for a sum of Rs. 75/-. Another similar extract Ex. PW1/2 related to a sale-deed of the same date executed by Ganga Ram in Regular Second Appeal No. 295 of 1985 -3- favour of Kewal on a payment of Rs. 75/-. The extract Ex. PW1/2 also mentioned the description of the property as being bounded on the east by common chowk, on the west by the land of Ganga Ram, on the north by a passage while on the south by the property of Amar Nath Shadi Ram. This document/extract did not contain any stipulations or terms of the sale. In the absence of the production of the original sale-deed, the extract Ex. PW1/2 could be admissible as secondary evidence only if it contained all the essential particulars contained in the document itself. When these things are missing, it could not be relied on to prove the title of the plaintiff-appellant to the property in question. Though Ex. PW1/2 was relied upon by the learned trial Court, yet learned first appellate Court was justified in not placing any reliance upon the same so as to establish the title of the plaintiff-appellant. Another document brought on record by the plaintiff- appellant to establish that he was owner of the property in question is the compromise deed Ex. P.5. This deed was executed by the plaintiff- appellant and his brother Lala Ram on 22.6.1975 whereby they partitioned their property between themselves. Clause 3 of the deed recorded that plot No. 1065 fell to the share of the plaintiff. The fact that the same was signed by Nanak Chand defendant-respondent No. 1 did not imply that Smt. Bhagwati defendant-respondent No. 2 was not the owner of the property in question or the same had been sold by her father earlier in favour of father of the plaintiff. Even defendant-respondent No.1 has denied that he had signed the deed Ex. P.5. He was also not a party to the Regular Second Appeal No. 295 of 1985 -4- document, but had simply signed it. It would not be even used as an admission against him. It could only establish that a particular document had been executed in his presence. This document was also rightly left out of consideration by the learned lower Appellate Court in non-suiting the plaintiff-appellant. Apart from the above, no other evidence had been led by the plaintiff-appellant to establish his ownership of the property in question. In such a situation, the plaintiff-appellant cannot be granted the reliefs prayed for by him. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, as claimed by the plaintiff-appellant, arises for determination in the second appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 11, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO