RSA No.2112 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.6027&6029-C of 2007 & RSA No.2112 of 2007 Decided on : 27.10.2009 Ravi Singh & others ... Appellants versus Gursharan Kaur & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Ashish Handa, Advocate for Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellants. **** 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) CM No.6027-C of 2007 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2112 of 2007 As per report, respondents have been served by way of publication. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Ld. Lower Appellate Court reversing that of the Trial Court and thereby decreeing the suit of the respondent challenging the sale deed in favour of the appellant on the ground that six years prior in 1968 the plaintiffs-respondents had purchased the land from RSA No.2112 of 2007 -2- the original owner and thus the subsequent sale deed and mutation in favour of the appellants do not affect their rights. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the appellants had become owners in possession being bona fide purchasers of the suit land in terms of the sale deed dt. 11.03.1974 (Ex.D1)? ii)Whether any fraud was played by the defendant No.1 upon the plaintiff No.3? iii)Whether the suit of the plaintiff was hopelessly time barred being filed after 20 years of the sale deed dt. 11.03.1974? iv)Whether the evidence brought by the plaintiff on record was discrepant, contradictory and was not cogent and clinching one? v)Whether the correct legal position has not been interpreted by the Appellate Court and no reasonable explanation has been given by the ld. Appellate Court while reversing the well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the ld. Trial Court? As regards as question No.(i), I do not see how this plea can arise. Once the land had been purchased by the plaintiffs-respondents and mutation had been sanctioned in their favour, the vendors of the appellants were not even the owner and thus, the appellants could not be bona fide purchasers. Questions No.(ii) & (iv) are pure questions of fact. Learned RSA No.2112 of 2007 -3- counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings of fact recorded are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence, which renders them so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Questions No.(iii) & (v) are related. In my opinion, ld. Lower Appellate Court has rightly found that the suit was within limitation from the date the right of the plaintiffs (who were otherwise owners in possession) were threatened. This question is thus also held against the appellant. Consequently, this appeal and application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. October 27, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE