RSA No. 248 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 248 of 2011 Date of Decision : 5th December, 2011 Darbara Singh ....Appellant Versus Man Singh & others ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Darbara Singh having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against respondents/defendants alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land measuring 32 Kanals 2 Marlas whereas defendants have no right, title or interest therein, but they threatened to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly and illegally from the suit land. Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against the said threatened action of the defendants. The plaintiff also pleaded that during pendency of the suit, he has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit land by the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff also sought relief of possession of the suit land. RSA No. 248 of 2011 -2- Defendants No.1 to 3 only contested the suit and pleaded that plaintiff's father had sold the suit land to Nagin Singh etc. The said sale was successfully preempted by Ganga Singh father of defendants No.1 to 3. He also got the mortgage of the suit land redeemed from the mortgagees. Accordingly, Ganga Singh became owner in possession of the suit land and after his death, defendants No.1 to 3 have become owners in possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 05.12.2001 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Contesting defendants No.1 to 3 have produced on record judgment of the preemption suit as well documents regarding redemption of mortgage of the suit land by Ganga Singh father of defendants No.1 to 3. Present plaintiff along with his mother and sister was party to the preemption suit. From the documentary evidence it is thus apparent that plaintiff's father had sold the suit land and the sale was successfully preempted by Ganga Singh father of the contesting defendants No.1 to 3. The plaintiff, therefore, has no right, title or interest in the suit land and has been rightly non-suited by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that sale deed RSA No. 248 of 2011 -3- executed by father of plaintiff-appellant has not been produced in evidence. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. The said sale deed was not required to be produced when contesting defendants have produced in evidence copy of judgment of the preemption suit whereby the said sale was preempted. Plaintiff was also party to the said preemption suit. Consequently, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that he is owner in possession of the suit land. Non-production of the sale deed executed by the plaintiff's father has no bearing on the case. Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant also contented that present plaintiff was not served in the preemption suit. The contention has to be rejected being completely meritless. There is neither any pleading nor evidence on record to substantiate this contention. Necessary consequence of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below to non-suit the plaintiff-appellant does not suffer from any infirmity, much less illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 5th December, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) 'raj' JUDGE