R.S.A. No. 1931 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1931 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.2.2009 Angrej Singh alias Geji and others ....Appellants Versus Sardara Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. Delay condoned. This is second appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 3.2.2007 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 26.7.2007. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession regarding a plot measuring 5-1/2 marlas which was depicted in the site plan appended to the suit. He contended that he had purchased the plot from Gurnam Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants by virtue of sale deed dated 4.7.1984 and he took possession of the plot. After the death of Gurnam Singh the plot was sold to Angrej Singh vide sale deed dated 24.1.2002 by the legal representatives of Gurnam Singh wrongly. The appellants, who were defendants, appeared and took R.S.A. No. 1931 of 2008 (O&M) -2- up the plea that the sale deed in their favour dated 24.1.2002 was validly executed by the legal heirs of Gurnam Singh. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property as prayed for?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not valued for the purposes of Court fee?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Whether the site plan of the plaintiff is incorrect?OPD 6. Relief. Ultimately on the basis of evidence the learned trial Court concluded that the sale deed dated 4.7.1984 executed by Gurnam Singh in favour of the respondent was validly executed and so the subsequent sale deed 24.1.2002 was invalid. The suit was decreed and the findings were affirmed by the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the sale in their favour was valid having been executed and duly registered by the legal representatives of deceased Gurnam Singh and that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and warrant interference. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the R.S.A. No. 1931 of 2008 (O&M) -3- appellants is totally misplaced. Gurnam Singh was concededly the owner of the suit land who had sold the same to the plaintiff- respondent vide sale deed dated 4.7.1984. The said sale deed on the basis of evidence has been found to be validly executed for consideration. The plaintiff-respondent also validly established the identity of the property which was sold to him. Once the sale deed had been validly executed, the legal representatives of Gurnam Singh were left with no title or interest in the same. Both the Courts also recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondent had been dispossessed forcibly about 5-6 years back. In any case, the possession of the suit property was immaterial to determine the factum of sale in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. As observed earlier, once the sale deed dated 4.7.1984 was held to be validly executed in favour of the appellants, clearly the legal representatives of deceased Gurnam Singh, who was the vendor, were left with no right, title or interest in the property to have passed it on further by way of another sale deed in favour of the present appellants. Therefore, both the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the respondent and accordingly the findings recorded by them cannot be termed to be perverse and warrant no interference in the regular second appeal. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss