Regular Second Appeal No. 3990 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3990 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.3.2009 *** Jagir Singh & Anr. .. Appellants VS. Harbans Kaur & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the appellants. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. After having lost concurrently before the Courts below, the plaintiffs are filing the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure and are laying challenge to the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. It emerges out from the records that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of suit land by virtue of sale deed dated 21.6.1999 executed by defendant-respondents No.1 to 4 in respect of suit land in their favour and defendants have no right to interfere in their possession. Alternatively, it was prayed by them that in case they are found not in possession of the suit land, the same be delivered to them. Defendant-respondents No.1 to 4 conceded the claim of the plaintiffs by filing admitted written statement. The stand of defendant-respondent No.5, on the other hand, was that defendants No.1 to 4 sold the suit land to him vide sale-deed dated 4.6.1999, for which mutation No. 125 had already been entered. According to defendant No.5 the sale deed dated 21.6.1999 is a sham transaction and the plaintiffs are not owners in possession of the suit land. Regular Second Appeal No. 3990 of 2008 2 After contest, both the Courts below concurrently held that the sale-deed dated 4.6.1999 executed by defendants No.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 has preferential rights over and above the sale-deed dated 21.6.1999 in favour of the plaintiffs executed by defendants No.1 to 4, who were not having any right or title in the suit property with the execution of sale deed in favour of the defendant, to alienate the same in favour of the plaintiff lateron. The said findings are discernible from paras No.17 and 18 of the judgment rendered by the learned First Appellate Court below, which read thus:- “17. The main contention raised by the counsel for appellants is that the sale deed dated 21/6/99 relates back to the agreement of sale. I find no force in the contention raised by the counsel for appellant because respondents No.1 to 4 has already sold suit land vide sale dated 4/6/99 in favour of respondent no.5. Therefore the respondents no.1 to 4 were not owners of the suit land on 21/6/99 on the date of which the sale deed was executed by respondents no.1 to 4 in favour of the appellant. Since the respondents no.1 to 4 were not owner on 21/6/99 and they had already transferred their ownership rights of the suit land on 4/6/99. Therefore the sale deed dated 21/6/99 confers no right title or entrust in favour of the appellants therefore, the contention raised by the counsel for appellants has not sustainable and agreement to sale does not confer any right of ownership. And it only creats right of equity only for the purpose of Section 53A of the Act. The execution of the agreement to sell does not complete and unless sale is registered. The rights created under the sale deed does not relate back to the agreement of sale. In this way the appellant cannot become owner of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 21/6/99. 18. The counsel for appellants further contended that a compromise was also effective between Regular Second Appeal No. 3990 of 2008 3 the parties and the amount was returned as per compromise Ex.D2. Therefore, the respondent cannot become owner on the basis of sale deed dated 4/6/99. I find no force in the contention raised by the counsel for appellant because the compromise Ex.D2 does not confer any right of ownership to the plaintiffs. The compromise Ex.D2 is un-registered document and it declare right to the immoveable property of more than Rs.100/- in value. Therefore, a compromise cannot be read into evidence and the same is un-registered as such, it creates no title in favour of the plaintiff/ appellants. Secondly a registered sale deed cannot be nullified by way of compromise between the parties. Therefore the agreement Ex.D2 is inadmissible and it does not confer any right ownership to the plaintiffs/ appellants.” From the above-said observations, it is abundantly clear that the same are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Therefore, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted being devoid of merit. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 3,2009 Jiten