RSA No.2497 of 2007 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.2497 of 2007 Date of Decision: 17.10.2008 **** Shiv Parshad Sharma …. Appellant/Applicant Vs. Dev Parkash & another …. Respondents **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for appellant/applicant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiffs/respondents filed the present suit for seeking declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of plot measuring 200 sq. yards with a room and boundary wall constructed thereon bounded as upto the extent of 40’ Agricultural land of Major Lal Singh - North, 20’ wide street - South, upto the extent of 45’ shop of the defendant – East and upto the extent of 45’ plaintiff – West bearing portion of Khasra No.708, 709 Khewat No.335, Khatauni No.359, as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 situated in Village Barewal Awana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana. The plaintiffs/respondents also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing them forcibly and restraining them from RSA No.2497 of 2007 - 2 - demolishing the construction raised by the plaintiffs on the said plot. As per the pleaded case of the plaintiffs, their mother Smt. Dwarki Devi purchased the land measuring 19B- 11B-1B Pukhta described in Khasra Nos. 708, 709, 710, 711, 720, 721 Khewat No.34 Khatauni No.55 as per jamabandi for the year 1966-67 situated at village Barewal Awana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana vide sale deed executed on 26.9.1968 and registered as Vasika No.2983 dated 26.9.1968. Smt. Dwarki Devi died in the month of March 1990. After her death, plaintiff No.1 had inherited half share out of the total land and the mutation of inheritance was entered and sanctioned in his favour. It has further been pleaded that some of the plots were sold by the plaintiff to some other persons. On the other hand, the case of defendant is that the plaintiff had executed two different agreements of sale of plot No.29 & 30 and on 10.8.1986 Rs.4000/- was paid by the defendant to Dev Parkash Sood, who came to the shop alongwith Roshan Lal Sood, out of total balance amount against receipt and vacant possession of plot No.29 was given to him. Similarly, it was pleaded that at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 21.8.1986, the defendant paid the amount of Rs.6400/- out of total sale consideration of Rs.11,000/- and agreed to make the payment of balance amount in easy installments of Rs.300/- per month. RSA No.2497 of 2007 - 3 - It is the case of the plaintiff that it was agreed between the parties that the possession of the plot will be given to the defendant if he pays the half of the remaining sale consideration and since the half of the remaining sale consideration was not paid, therefore, the agreement was revoked. Moreover, the defendant though, had pleaded that he has paid Rs.4000/- against a receipt, but he failed to prove the execution of the receipt, as well as, no attesting witness of the receipt was examined and no opinion of the expert was obtained in order to prove the signatures of Dev Parkash marked as S1 and S9 on the documents referred to above and the disputed signatures Q1 & Q2 are forged. It has also come on record that defendant had filed two suits for specific performance in respect of the aforesaid two agreements, which were dismissed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Courts below have decreed the suit of plaintiff. Sh. Gurcharan Dass, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, while assailing the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, could not point out any error in the appreciation of evidence, nor could raise any question of law, much less substantial stated to be involved in the present appeal. Hence, the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs are in possession, and defendant is not in possession as no evidence has been led by the defendant as to when he paid the balance sale RSA No.2497 of 2007 - 4 - consideration of the agreement and on which date the possession of the suit property was handed over to him are upheld. Thus, no question of law, much less substantial is involved in this case. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 17.10.2008 JUDGE vivek