R.S.A. No. 1379 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1379 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 21.10.2009 Smt. Anguri Sharma .......... Appellant Versus Ved Parkash ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3.2.2009, passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant / appellant from interfering in his possession over the suit property, stands decreed by both the learned Courts below. The plaintiff / respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction on the plea that, he was owner in possession of the property in pursuance to the sale deed dated 8.1.1986 executed in his favour. The suit was contested by the defendant / appellant while the factum of sale in favour of the plaintiff / respondent was admitted, the stand taken was that, in fact only 38 Sq. yards of area was agreed to be sold, whereas the first floor of the premises in dispute was not sold to the plaintiff. He was not entitled to injunction qua the first floor. R.S.A. No. 1379 of 2009 2 In support of the case, the plaintiff besides leading oral evidence produced on record the registered sale deed along with the site plan Ex. P-1 showing that the sale was with regard to the ground floor as well as the first floor. In order to settle the dispute between the parties, the Court sought the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory. As per the report it stood proved that site plan Ex. P-1 was not tampered with, whereas the site plan filed by the defendant / appellant was tampered. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding that the plaintiff / respondent was owner of the property in dispute and decreed the suit for injunction. Mr. Avnish Mittal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is out come of misreading of oral and documentary evidence, thus, perverse ? 2. Whether in absence of mention of Ex. P-1 as part of main document, it could not be treated to be part of sale deed ? In support of the substantial questions of law, referred above, the learned counsel for the appellant read the statement of the plaintiff / respondent wherein he had admitted having purchased 38 Sq. yards of land, to contend that, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below, on the face of it, were perverse being outcome of misreading of evidence. R.S.A. No. 1379 of 2009 3 The learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that in the sale deed there was no mention of site plan Ex. P-1, therefore, in absence of covenant qua Ex. P-1 the learned Courts could not rely on the site plan. In the sale deed it was mentioned that the land being sold was 38 Sq. yards. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The admission said to have been made by the plaintiff / respondent in the cross-examination is not that the whole of the property was not purchased, as contended. The documentary evidence on record, which stood proved by the report of the FSL, that Ex. P-1 was attached with the sale deed at the time of execution of sale deed. Once in the sale deed the possession was shown to have been handed over to the respondent, and in absence of any other evidence on record to the contrary the learned Courts were right in decreeing the suit. The suit was merely for injunction and not for declaration of the title, therefore, it was not necessary for the Court to go in the details qua sale, once it was proved that plaintiff was put in possession in pursuance to the sale, he was entitled to injunction. The first substantial question of law is answered against the appellant, and it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is not outcome of misreading of evidence. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted. The document Ex. P-1 was attached with the sale deed at the time of registration of the sale deed. The intention of the parties, therefore, was prima facie to form it as part of the document, otherwise R.S.A. No. 1379 of 2009 4 there was hardly any necessity to attach Ex. P-1 with the sale deed at the time of registration. No error, therefore, can be said to be committed by placing reliance on Ex. P-1 to decree the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent especially when Court was not adjudicating on question of title as the suit was merely for injunction. No merit. Dismissed. 21.10.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE