RSA No.3599 of 2009(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3599 of 2009(O & M) Date of Decision:16.09.2010 Shashi Kapoor .... appellant Versus Gurdip Singh & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vipin Mahajan,Advocate for the appellant Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): Appellant, who is defendant No.6 before the trial court has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent for possession by partition of the suit property, was decreed. Plaintiff-respondent filed the suit on the averments that Smt.Isharo Kaur w/o Lal Singh was owner of the house and after her death, plainitff-respondent(who is being represented by respondents No.1 to 5) along with defendant No.1 Devi Dayal Singh(who is being represented by his LRs i.e respondents No.6 to 10) were the joint owners of the suit property to the extent of ½ share each. Devi Dayal Singh died in the year 1987 and after his death his share passed on to defendants No. 1 to 5(now RSA No.3599 of 2009(O & M) 2 respondents No. 6 to 10). It was further pleaded that sale made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.6 i.e.appellant, by way of registered sale deed dated 20.06.1988, was illegal. Upon notice,defendants No.1 and 6 appeared and filed separate written statements. Defendant No.1, claimed that after the death of Lal Singh in the year 1946-47, Devi Dayal Singh became the absolute owner of the suit property and executed a valid Will dated 21.11.1986 in his favour and the plaintiff had no share in the suit property. Defendant No.6 in her written statement claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute on the basis of registered sale deed dated 20.06.1988 executed in her favour by the LRs of defendant No.1 i.e.respondents No.6 to 10. Both the courts below had decreed the suit for possession to the extent of ½ share of the suit property in favour of respondents No. 1 to 5 who are the legal representatives of plaintiff-respondent. The plea of bona fide purchaser set up by the appellant was not accepted by the courts below. Even before this Court, the aforesaid finding of the courts below could not be successfully challenged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. Faced with this situation, an application was made on 20th July, 2010 before this Court that appellants were ready to pay the market value of the suit property to respondents No. 1 to 5 and notice of motion was issued only to the extent of exploring the aforesaid possibility. Mr.B.S.Sidhu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents, on instructions from Neelam Kaur-respondent No.3, states that contesting respondents are not ready to sell the property in dispute. In this view of the matter, I find no reason to interfere in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below. RSA No.3599 of 2009(O & M) 3 No substantial question of law arises. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 16.09.2010 neenu