R.S.A.No. 1936 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1936 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.1.2011 Gurnam Singh through legal representatives ......Appellants Versus Bhupinder Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellants. None for respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Gurnam Singh filed a suit for declaration that he be declared owner in possession of the suit land. The case of the plaintiff was that the parties were real brothers and they had been acquiring landed property out of joint funds. 27 kanals 11 marlas of land was purchased in village Nanheri out of joint funds and sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants due to mutual trust R.S.A.No. 1936 of 2007 (O&M) 2 between the parties. An agreement was entered between the parties on 31.10.1988 and in terms of the same, plaintiff was in possession of six kanals of land in question. Defendants in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. The execution of alleged agreement dated 31.10.1988 was denied. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiff was allotted 6 kanals of land in lieu of the land purchased in village Nanheri in the name of the defendants and the agreement dated 31.10.1988 was executed interse parties? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is owner in possession of 6 kanals of land over and above his share recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1994-95? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration prayed for? OPP 4.Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 6. Relief. Vide judgment and decree dated 21.9.2005, suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same R.S.A.No. 1936 of 2007 (O&M) 3 was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit land and had based reliance on agreement dated 31.10.1988. However, the said document, partition deed, was an un-registered document and hence, could not be read in evidence. A perusal of Ex.P-1, placed on record as Annexure P-1, reveals that there is an addition at point Mark 'A' and at point Mark 'B'. The signatures of Bhinder Singh are not visible. At Mark 'C' again the signatures of Bhinder Singh are not there and the learned Additional District Judge in para 10 of its judgment has observed that the signatures at Mark 'A' and 'C' have been erased . Learned Additional District Judge had apparently given the finding after examining the original of the agreement, whereas, a photocopy of the agreement has been placed on record in this appeal. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly discarded the agreement Ex.P-1. The sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants in the year 1983 but the same was never challenged by the plaintiff till the year 1999. The plaintiff had also failed to lead any evidence that the land in question had been purchased out of joint funds. R.S.A.No. 1936 of 2007 (O&M) 4 In civil suit No.92 dated 23.5.2000, filed by the plaintiff against Bhupinder Singh and Kaka Singh, a reference was made to the agreement in question. In para 14 of the judgment, learned Additional District Judge has observed that in that suit no finding had been given qua agreement dated 31.10.1988. The said observation of the learned Additional District Judge, has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the appellants. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge rightly held that the plaintiff could not take any benefit of the pleadings in the earlier litigation. The Courts below had, thus, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 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 January 17, 2011 anita