RSA No.1330 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1330 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: June 01, 2011. Gopal Singh. .. Appellant VERSUS Ashwani Kumar. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Charanjit Bakhshi, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) CM No.3712-C of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of one day in filing of the appeal is condoned. Misc. application stands allowed. RSA No.1330 of 2011 (O&M) Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff-respondent, has been decreed by the Courts below. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent pertain to a . . . 1 RSA No.1330 of 2011 (O&M) property shown as portion ABCD in site plan. The Courts below have decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent on the basis of a sale deed EX.P6, executed by Gopal Singh, in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. The defendant-appellant had taken up a plea in the written statement that the plaintiff-respondent had purchased a plot EFGH, which is shown in the site plan EX.D1 and not the plot which is shown as ABCD in the same site plan and that the plaintiff- respondent being not in possession of the plot in dispute shown as ABCD in the site plan EX.D1, the suit for injunction deserves to be dismissed. The Courts below have decreed the suit giving a finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondent had actually purchased the portion ABCD which is visible in site plan EX.D1, disbelieving the plea of the defendant-appellant that it was plot EFGH which was actually sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had claimed that he had constructed boundary wall along with ABCD shown in EX.D1. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that both the plots ABCD and EFGH have got similar dimensions and similar surroundings. They have got streets in the Eastern and Southern side of both the plots. There is a vacant plot on the Northern side of both the plots. In the West of both the plots, there is a land belonging to the other owners. Taking advantage of that situation, the defendant-appellant sought to defeat the rights of the plaintiff- respondent to protect the possession of the plot in dispute. The Courts below have given detailed reasons for arriving at the finding of fact regarding the plaintiff-respondent being in possession of the . . . 2 RSA No.1330 of 2011 (O&M) property in dispute. Counsel for the defendant-appellant has vehemently contended that the plaintiff-respondent had purchased specific portion out of the joint holding described in the sale deed EX.P6 from the defendant-appellant as such, the defendant- appellant would remain as co-owner of the property and no injunction could be sought against him. I do not find any force in the above contention of the counsel for the defendant-appellant as neither the details of the property owned by the defendant-appellant has been given in the written statement nor any proof has been produced regarding the extent of share of defendant-appellant in the property sold or the property which is left with him. The Courts below have arrived at a firm conclusion that from the sale deed dated 26.04.2004, it is clear that a specific plot was sold by the defendant-appellant to the plaintiff-respondent and it was undertaken by the seller that in case of any defect in the title, the seller shall be responsible. The defendant-appellant being seller seem to be taking advantage of the similarity of the plots ABCD & EFGH, to confuse the issue. No ground is made out for interference as no substantial question of law is involved. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE June 01, 2011. rka . . . 3