RSA No.2704 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2704 of 2004 Decided on : 08.10.2009 Lal Chand ... Appellant versus Ram Kishore & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Dr. Balram Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anamika Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.P.Verma, Advocate. Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers 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? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos.2704 & 2397 of 2004 as common questions of facts and law are involved. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the appellant while decreeing the counter claim of the respondents No.2 & 3 with regard to the property, which was owned by respondent No.1 and in which the claim of the appellant as well as respondents No. 2 & 3 was of purchase from the respondent No.1. Both the Courts below have found that RSA No.2704 of 2004 -2- the respondent No.1 first executed sale deed in favour of respondents No.2 & 3 and thereafter in collusion with the appellant, executed a sale agreement in favour of the appellant. The following questions have been proposed: i) If no consideration is proved to have passed, whether the title in the property would still stand transferred or not in view of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act? ii)Whether the title to the single storey house includes the title to the plot on which the house has been constructed or not? As regards question No.(i), both the Courts below found that the respondent No.1 has signed every page of the sale deed and that the fact of passing of consideration has been testified to not only the Advocate who scribed the document but also the Advocate who signed the same as a witness and consequently the same would have been deemed to have been proved. As regards question No.(ii), a perusal of the sale agreement in favour of the appellant and that in favour of the respondents No.2 & 3 also identifies that both the properties mentioned were bounded by same boundaries. Thus, both the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence, so as to RSA No.2704 of 2004 -3- render them perverse. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. October 08, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE