RSA No.1995 of 2005 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... RSA No.1995 of 2005 Decided on : April 16, 2009 Balwan Singh and others ... Appellants VERSUS Ram Kumar and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.B.S.Sodhi and Mrs.Brijbala, Advocates for the appellants. Mr.Gurmail Singh, Advocate for the respondents. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.3.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Kaithal, dismissing the appeal of the defendants – appellants (herein referred as the defendants) and upholding the decree dated 10.5.2000 passed in favour of respondent No.1 – plaintiff, by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. Ram Kumar – respondent No.1 had challenged decree dated 5.11.1979 passed in Civil Suit No.190 dated 26.4.1979 and claimed his title and possession over the property, whereas, defendants are claiming their title over the property on the basis of the aforesaid decree, allegedly RSA No.1995 of 2005 [ 2 ] suffered by Saran Singh in their favour. In fact, Saran Singh was the real owner of the property and he died issueless. He had suffered a decree dated 28.4.1977 in Civil Suit No.140/15.4.1977 in favour of Ram Kumar and Ram Saroop, his real brothers. Thereafter, he again suffered decree dated 5.11.1979 in favour of sons of Ram Saroop (defendants). The argument raised by the appellants is that since Ram Kumar and Ram Saroop remained in possession throughout and there was no transfer of possession by Saran Singh, therefore, the factum with regard to the earlier decree did not come to the knowledge of the plaintiff. But this argument cannot be accepted. The earlier decree was suffered by Saran Singh in favour of the defendants, who are the members of the same family. Even otherwise, Saran Singh had already parted his interest in the property, therefore, he having no interest in the property couldnot suffer another decree with regard to the same property without getting the previous one set aside. As such, the Trial Court as well the lower Appellate Court after dealing with all the aspects of the case returned concurrent findings of fact that the second decree dated 5.11.1979 was a waste paper and the same does not confer any title upon the defendants. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. April 16, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE