IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1198 of 2011(O&M). Date of Decision: December 16, 2011. Sumer Singh and another ...... APPELLANTS Versus Randhir Singh and another ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.3256-C of 2011. The application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1198 of 2011. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned District Judge Sonepat dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat dismissing the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs and have gone through the whole record including both the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. RSA No.1198 of 2011(O&M) Briefly stated, present appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for decree of permanent injunction that they along with their mother are absolute owners in possession of the premises in dispute. Plea has also been taken that property in dispute was earlier owned by Jage Ram who expired on 19.08.1986. His son Diwana had expired about 40 years ago, whereas his other son Baljeet Singh had also expired 35 years ago during the life time of Jage Ram and hence, the suit property was inherited by plaintiffs and Smt. Bharpai and defendants have no right. They have also challenged the sale deed dated 6.2.2006 executed in favour of respondent-defendant No.2. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant has taken the plea that Jage Ram had sold the property in dispute in favour of Jeet Ram. However, a pre-emption suit was filed by Rameshwer son of Baljeet Singh son of Jage Ram, which was decreed in his favour and hence, he became owner in possession of the suit land. Rameshwer sold the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 Dharam Kaur wife of respondent No.1 and since then defendants have been continuing in possession of the suit land. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellants- plaintiffs. Appeal filed by them was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Sonepat. Admitted facts are that Jage Ram was owner in possession of the suit property who died in the year 1986. However, Jage Ram executed sale deed Ex.D9 in favour of Jeet Ram son of Uday Ram. Hence, Jage Ram was having no right in the property in dispute after executing the said sale deed. A suit for pre-emption was filed by Rameshwer son of Baljeet son of Jage Ram and the said suit was decreed in his favour and hence, Rameshwer became owner of the said property in his own right. He later 2 RSA No.1198 of 2011(O&M) on sold the same to respondent-defendant No.2. Hence, the present appellants-plaintiffs, who are claiming right in the property in dispute through Jage Ram, are having no right as Jage Ram had already sold the suit property vide registered sale deed and was left with no right in the suit property. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 16, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3