In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2007 Date of decision: July 17, 2008 Haneef ... Appellant versus Som Nath Bhatia ... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) The defendant-appellant has come up in this second appeal against the judgment dated 18.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad upholding the judgment dated 18.11.2005 passed by the trial court. The plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming permanent injunction on the basis of the sale deed dated 1.1.1996 duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Faridabad vide which he had purchased the said plot for a consideration of Rs.90,000/-. The mutation No.3232 was sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed on 16.3.1996. The plaintiff sought the permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the suit property. On notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement wherein he took the plea that the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of C.P.C. as the dispute between the alleged mortgagee and the defendant NO.2 is still pending in the High Court in RSA No.2378 of 1992. The other pleas raised by them is that the plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit property, whereas the defendant No.2 Badlu is the owner in possession of the said land for the last 40 years. It was also denied if the plaintiff had purchased the land from the previous owner vide registered sale deed dated 1.1.1996. R.S.A. No. 2318 of 2007 -2- *** Heard. The substantial question of law in this case is whether the sale deed dated 1.1.1996 is valid? The plaintiff/respondent is claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed Ex.P2. To the contrary, the defendants have relied upon Ex.D11 (Hindi translation is Ex.D11/A) and Ex.D7 to Ex.D11 i.e. Revenue Record showing the defendants as owners over the suit land. The sale deed Ex.P2 reveals that the plaintiff purchased the suit land from Om Parkash and mutation No.3232 was also sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed. Consequently, his name also figured in the recent Revenue Record. Ex.P1/A, copy of the Khasra Girdawri has been proved in order to support this plea. Moreover the defendants have set up contradictory pleas. On one side he is claiming ownership on the basis of revenue record and on the other hand they are claiming adverse possession. There is nothing on the record that Om Parkash ever encroached upon the land of the share of the defendants. No plea was raised that Om Parkash had no right to transfer the suit property. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. July 17, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge