R.S.A.No. 2915 of 2009(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2915 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 16.3.2011 Ram Singh ......Appellant Versus Santosh Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had purchased the land measuring 3 marlas out of 4 kanals 4 marlas bearing khasra No.35 from Ram Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Staish Kumar and Rani Devi vide sale deed dated 8.6.1990 for a consideration of ` 40,000/-. Thereafter, the plaintiff had constructed three shops and two stores on the suit land. Ajit Parshad Jain was owner of 3 marlas of land bearing khasra No.5 measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas. He had alienated the said land to defendants No.1 and 2 R.S.A.No. 2915 of 2009(O&M) 2 vide two separate sale deeds dated 31.5.1990 in equal shares. The defendants had no right, title or interest qua the shops and stores constructed by the plaintiff on his own land. However, the defendants were threatening to take forcible possession of the suit land. Defendants in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that Surjeeto Devi and Jarnail Singh had sold 3 marlas of land to Ajit Parshad Jain vide sale deed dated 16.4.1990. Ram Kumar had filed a suit against said Ajit Parshad Jain, his own mother Surjeeto Devi and brother Jarnail Singh seeking declaration and injunction by challenging the sale deed dated 16.4.1990. During the pendency of the suit Ram Kumar, Sheesh Pal, Krishan Kumar and Rani Devi sold three marlas of land out of khasra No.35 to Ram Singh vide sale deed dated 8.6.1990. Plaintiff had also initiated proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. qua three shops and two stores on 12.7.1990 in connivance with local police but the same were dropped by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Panchkula on 7.8.1991 as civil suit was pending. Another suit was filed by Ram Singh in August, 1991 for permanent injunction that the defendants be restrained from interfering in his possession qua three shops and two stores. On 7.8.1991, a compromise was effected between Surjeeto Devi, Jarnail Singh, Ram Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Shashi Kumar, Rani Devi and Ram Singh (plaintiff). Ram Singh had admitted the dimensions qua sale deed executed by Surjeeto Devi and Jarnail Singh in favour of Ajit Parshad Jain to be correct and also admitted that Ajit Parshad Jain had delivered possession of 96 square yards to Jagat Ram and Vinod Kumar one month prior to the R.S.A.No. 2915 of 2009(O&M) 3 execution of the sale deed dated 31.5.1990. It was also admitted that the defendants had constructed three shops and two stores over the said property. The pending cases between the parties were withdrawn as ` 50,000/- were paid to Surjeeto Devi, Jarnail Singh, Ram Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Shashi Kumar, Rani Devi, Ram Singh and Kashmir Puri in the presence of witnesses. Respondents were owners in possession of three shops and two stores in view of compromise dated 7.8.1991. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 3.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2008. Appeal filed by the plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties have given a finding of fact that the defendants were in R.S.A.No. 2915 of 2009(O&M) 4 possession of the suit land. Plaintiff had not based reliance on compromise dated 1.4.2000 Ex.D-1. The said compromise was allegedly executed between the parties before filing of the suit but no reference qua the said compromise was made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The attorney, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in the witness box, also did not refer to the compromise Ex.D-1. The defendants in the written statement had also made reference to a compromise effected between the parties on 7.8.1991 but the same was not disputed by the plaintiff by filing a replication. The attorney, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, admitted his signatures on the said compromise. On the basis of the said compromise plaintiff had withdrawn the civil suits filed by him. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 16, 2011 anita