IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2012 of 2007. Date of Decision: 29th April, 2009. Ram Dev ....Appellant through Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate Versus Babu @ Dev Karan & Ors. .Respondents through None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose suit for Permanent Injunction has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The appellant sought a decree for permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the property in dispute on the strength of a sale deed dated 4.5.1993 [Ex.P2]. The facts on record reveal that the original owner – Kanti Parshad was owner in possession of land measuring 100 square yards out of which 49 square yards land was sold by him to the appellant vide the aforementioned sale deed. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the said 49 square yards plot which the appellant had purchased vide sale deed dated 4.5.1993 [Ex.P2], was further sold by him to the contesting respondent vide sale deed dated 31.10.1996 [Ex.D1]. The execution of the sale deed [Ex.D1] has been duly proved by the testimony of DW3 and DW4. Similarly, the oral evidence produced by the appellant to establish his possession over the subject property has not been found convincing, rather the testimony of PW3 has been held to be inconsistent and unreliable. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and on perusal of the impugned judgments, I am of the considered view that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this appeal. There is a concurrent finding of fact by the Courts below that the sale deed relied upon by the appellant is no longer a valid title-deed as the same property had already been sold by the appellant to the contesting respondent vide a subsequent sale deed [Ex.D1]. There being no challenge to the subsequent sale deed and the appellant having failed to prove his possession over the subject property, the Courts below have rightly concurred that the appellant is not entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and decrees may not come in the appellant's way while challenging the subsequent sale deed dated 31.10.1996 [Ex.D1]. Suffice it to say that if the law so permits him at this stage, the appellant would be at liberty to institute such a suit. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decrees, this appeal is dismissed in limine. April 29, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE