RSA No.3054 of 2007(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3054 of 2007(O&M) Date of Decision: October 31, 2011 Avtar Singh .....Appellant v. Sukhdev Singh Sidhu and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Swaran Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.N.S.Rapri, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.A.S.Gill, Advocate for respondent no.1. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.1.2007 passed by learned District Judge, Hoshiapur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 7.11.2000 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Garhshankar, partly decreeing the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that he is owner in joint possession to the extent of 12 marlas whereas defendant no.4 is owner in joint possession to the extent of 6 marlas and defendant no.5 is to the extent of 6 marlas in addition to their shares out of khasra No.162 situated in village Pakhowal H.B.No.273 RSA No.3054 of 2007(O&M) -2- vide jamabandi for the year 1992-93 on the basis of a sale deed dated 27.6.1955 executed by Gajjan Singh son of Amru alias Amar Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendants no.1 to 3 and Balbir Singh son of Gajjan Singh and that the entries in the revenue record, i.e., jamabandi for the year 1992-93 showing respondents-defendants no.1 to 3 and Balbir Singh deceased as joint owners in possession of the said land is illegal and void with consequential relief of injunction. On notice being issued, the suit was contested by respondent- defendant no.1-Sukhdev Singh by taking the plea that Gajjan Singh never sold land measuring 1 kanal 14 marlas to the present plaintiff and that the sale deed, if any, is a false and fabricated document. Plea has also been taken that Gajjan Singh remained only in possession of his share in the property in dispute till his death and that Gajjan Singh was succeeded by defendants no.2 and 3 and Balbir Singh regarding his entire estate including his share in khasra No.162 and they entered into possession of the suit land to the extent of the share of Gajjan Singh after his death and mutation of inheritance was also duly sanctioned in their favour. Plea has also been taken that defendant no.1 succeeded to the share of his father Khushia, who remained in possession as owner over his share. Gajjan Singh was succeeded by defendants no.1 and 2 and Balbir Singh. Balbir Singh sold his share in the suit land alongwith other land to defendant no.1 vide sale deed dated 9.7.1991 and he was put in possession of his share. Mutation of sale was also duly sanctioned and incorporated in the record and hence, plea has been taken that defendant no.1 is also a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial court partly decreed RSA No.3054 of 2007(O&M) -3- the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff to the extent that appellant-plaintiff and respondents-defendants no.4 and 5 were declared to be co-owners in joint possession to the extent of 1578 share out of suit land over and above their shares recorded in jamabandi Ex.P5 in the name of defendants no.2 and 3. It has also been clarified that appellant-plaintiff has one half share in the land and respondents-defendants no.4 and 5 have 1/4th share each out of their total 1578 share and accordingly respondents-defendants no.2 and 3 were restrained from interfering in their joint possession and they were also restrained from alienating the suit land to any other person. Learned trial Court has not decreed the suit filed by appellant- plaintiff against respondent-defendant no.1 and rather it was held that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration to the extent of 128 share out of the suit land vide sale deed Ex.D1. Appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that learned Courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that respondent-defendant no.1 is a bona fide purchaser for consideration and that he was not aware of sale deed executed by Gajjan Singh in favour of plaintiff and respondents no.4 and 5, as he is also one of the co-sharer in the entire land as the parties belong to the same family. On the other hand it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent-defendant no.1 that the dispute is regarding khasra No.162 and the present suit has been filed by appellant-plaintiff regarding Khasra No.162 only and that the alleged sale deed in favour of present appellant- plaintiff is also regarding share in Khasra No.162. It is further contended RSA No.3054 of 2007(O&M) -4- that however share of vendor of present appellant-plaintiff and respondents- defendants no.4 and 5, namely, Gajjan Singh in khasra No.162 as per jamabandi for the year 1962-63 Ex.P4 was only 12 marlas and hence, it is contended that learned trial Court has rightly observed that Gajjan Singh was not competent to execute sale deed in excess of his share in Khasra No.162. It is further contended that moreover no entry was made in the revenue record, i.e., in the jamabandi regarding the alleged sale deed in favour of appellant-plaintiff and respondents-defendants no.4 and 5 out of khasra No.162 and hence, respondent-defendant no.1 purchased share of Balbir Singh, as shown in jamabandi Ex.P5 after making due enquiry for consideration and hence, both the Court have rightly held that sale in favour of respondent-defendant no.l is a valid one and that earlier sale-deed, if any, in favour of appellant-plaintiff in no way effects the rights in the property of respondent-defendant no.1 acquired by him by way of purchase from Balbir Singh vide sale deed, Ex.D1 as Balbir Singh was recorded as co-owner to the extent of his share in khasra No.162. There is force in the argument of learned counsel for respondents-defendants. Respondent -defendant no.1 purchased share of Balbir Singh in Khasra No.162 as per jamabandi Ex.D5 for consideration. Hence, both the Courts have rightly held that he is bona fide purchaser for consideration. Moreover, present appellant-plaintiff is claiming rights in the property through Gajjan Singh and, however, right of Gajjan Singh in Khasra No.162 was only to the extent of 12 marlas and hence, he could not sell 1 kanal 14 marlas of land out of khasra No.162. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the RSA No.3054 of 2007(O&M) -5- impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 31.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge