R.S.A.No.4238 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4238 of 2005 Date of Decision : 17.09.2009 Chajju Ram and others ...Appellants Versus Kitab Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiffs are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby their suit for injunction on the basis of ownership of the property in suit on the basis of sale deed dated 29.9.1992, was dismissed. The plaintiffs alleged to have purchased property in dispute vide registered sale deed dated 29.9.1992 executed by Mahabir Parshad Jain and Krishan. The plaintiffs claim to be in possession of the suit property from the date of purchase on the basis of said sale deed. The defendants denied that the property was owned by the vendors namely Mahabir Parshad Jain and Krishan. It was alleged that said persons never had any property in the village, therefore, they could not transfer the same in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue No.1 was framed to the effect that whether the plaintiffs are owner in possession of the residential house as alleged. Learned trial Court found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and possession. It was found that apart from sale deed R.S.A.No.4238 of 2005 2 Ex.P-1, there is not a single document to show that how the vendors of the appellants were owners of the suit property. It was also found that the relevant documents like Chula Tax, Identity Card, Ration Card, Electricity connection details have not been produced to show title of the vendors of the appellants. Consequently, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, such findings have been affirmed except holding that the suit is maintainable, while returning finding on issue No.2. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the suit of the plaintiffs was simpliciter suit for injunction, therefore, the question of ownership was not required to be examined, in such suit. Therefore, the findings thereon are not sustainable, when the plaintiffs have proved their possession. Since, the plaintiffs are admittedly in possession, therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to injunction against forcible dispossession from the defendants. He relies upon a judgment of this Court in Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association (Regd.), Amritsar Vs. Amritsar Diocesan Trust Association, Amritsar 1998(3) PLR 589. I do not find any merit in the said argument. The plaintiffs have filed suit for injunction claiming ownership on the basis of purchase vide registered sale deed dated 29.9.1992. There was specific issue regarding ownership framed. The parties have led evidence to prove their ownership. After considering such evidence, both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs have failed to prove title of their vendors. Even if the property situated in abadi deh, it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to lead evidence to show that their vendors were owners of the property in abadi. Non-production of Chula R.S.A.No.4238 of 2005 3 Tax, Identity Card, Ration Card, Electricity connection details of the vendors of the plaintiffs show that they were even not inhabitants of the village and, thus, not proved to be the owners of any property in the abadi. Therefore, the sale deed does not convey any valid title in favour of the appellants. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants relates to impleading of a party in a suit for permanent injunction. That was not a case, where an issue was framed regarding title of the plaintiff and the finding returned. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 17.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE