R.S.A. No.2642 of 2009(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. NO. 7800-C of2009, Civil Misc. No.7801-C of 2009 and R.S.A. No.2642 of 2009 Date of decision:20.07.2009 Gura Singh ......Appellant Versus Balwinder Kaur and others ......Respondents Before: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the appellant. RAJIVE BHALLA, J. Civil Misc. No. 7800-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Misc. No. 7801-C of 2009 and R.S.A.No.2642 of 2009 The appellant challenges, judgments and decrees dated 24.08.2007 and 29.04.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Taran Taran and the Additional District Judge, Taran Taran, decreeing the suit filed by Paramjeet Singh (deceased), and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Paramjeet Singh(deceased) filed a suit for joint 1 R.S.A. No.2642 of 2009(O&M) possession of a suit land, on the plea that he had purchased the share of Chhindo and Guro, vide registered sale deed, dated 2.09.1987. The appellant filed a written statement and pleaded that he had purchased specific khasra numbers from Chhindo and Guro, vide sale deed, dated 2.04.1996 and therefore, Paramjeet Singh has no right, title or interest in the suit land. The other defendants pleaded their respective titles on the basis of sale deeds executed in their favour. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of joint possession of the suitland, fully detailed in the title of the suit on the basis of sale deed dated 2.9.87 in his favour?OPP 2. Whether defendant no. 1 has purchased the land fully detailed in para no. 2 of the written statement out of the suit land vide sale deed dated 2.4.96 from defendants no. 3 and 4. If so, its effect?OPD 1 3. Whether defendants no. 6,14, 15, 16 have purchased part of the suit land from defendant no. 5 Bhiro vide sale deed dated 15.1285. If so, its effect?OPD 6, 14, 15, 16. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 6. Whether the suit is not property valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 2 R.S.A. No.2642 of 2009(O&M) 7. Whether the suit is within limitation?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed material facts from the court. If so, its effect? OPD 9. Relief. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of joint possession to the extent of 1/24 share of land measuring 3 kanals and 4 marlas and to the extent of 1/48 share of land measuring 161 kanals and 12 marlas, as after sale of the land to Parminder Singh, vide sale deed dated 2.09.1987, Chinndo and Guro had no subsisting interest that they could validly transfer to the appellant. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2009, the Additional District Judge, Taran Taran dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgments are illegal, as the courts below have failed to appraise the revenue record which records Chinndo and Guro as owners. The courts below have therefore, recorded a wrong finding that Chhindo and Guro were not competent to sell the land to the appellant. The courts below ignored the fact that the appellant has proved the sale deed, dated 2.04.1996, whereby Chhindo and Guro sold 15 kanals of land to the appellant by reference to 3 R.S.A. No.2642 of 2009(O&M) specific Khasra numbers. As the appellant purchased this land after making due enquiry as to the title of Chhindo and Guro he is a bonafide purchaser for consideration, without prior notice of the sale deed, executed in favour of Paramjeet Singh(deceased). It is submitted that in view of these error in the impugned judgments the following questions of law arises for consideration: 1. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees under appeal are sustainable and in accordance with law? 2. Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief claimed in the appeal? I have heard counsel for the appellant and express my inability to acceeds to the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant, as I do not find any error of law, as would raise a substantial question of law. Both the trial court and the first appellate court, are concurrent in their opinion that as Chhindo and Guro, had already sold their land to Paramjeet Singh (deceased), they did not have an subsisting interest in the suit land that they could have validly transfered to the appellant by way of the sale deed, dated 2.04.1996. The appellant's claim that he is a bonafide vendor was rightly rejected as in the sale deed dated 2.09.1987, he is recorded as a vendee with Paramjeet Singh. The sale deed is also signed by the appellant. The questions of law, framed by counsel for the appellant, do not disclose, as to why the impugned judgments are not sustainable 4 R.S.A. No.2642 of 2009(O&M) and in what manner, the appellant is entitled to any relief. In view of the concurrent findings of fact, recorded by courts below, no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 20th July, 2009 SKaushik 5