RSA No.469 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.469 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Harkesh Gupta .....Appellant v. T.D.Chawla and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8010-C of 2011 Requests for placing on record the certified copy of judgment and decree dated 4.5.1991, passed by learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Rajpura. However, the judgment and decree now sought to be placed on record has not been placed on the record of learned Courts below. Hence, the request is declined. RSA No.469 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, vide which appeal filed by present appellant- plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dera Bassi, dismissing the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone RSA No.469 of 2011(O&M) -2- through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both the Courts below. Briefly stated, present appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for declaration that he is owner of the property in dispute as the same was sold to him by respondents-plaintiffs no.2 to 7 vide sale deed 5.3.1998. Further plea is that possession of suit property was also delivered to him at the time of execution of the sale-deed by vendors, i.e., respondents-plaintiffs no.2 to 7 and, however, after six months of taking possession by appellant-plaintiff no.1, he was forcibly dispossessed by respondent-defendant. Suit has been contested by respondent-defendant by taking the plea that he had purchased the property in dispute vide sale-deed dated 5.1.1984 from Tikka Singh and Hakam Singh and immediately thereafter he raised construction over the same and since then, he has been continuing in possession of the same as owner. Hence, it is contended that when he already became owner of the property in dispute by virtue of sale deed dated 5.1.1984, subsequent alleged sale deed dated 5.3.1998 in favour of appellant-plaintiff no.1 by respondents-plaintiffs no.2 to 7 in no way affects his rights as his sale deed is much prior to the alleged sale deed executed in favour of appellant-plaintiff no.1 by respondents-plaintiffs no.2 to 7. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff by holding that respondent-defendant has been able to establish his long and established possession over the suit property since the year 1984. Appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that the disputed khasra number was allotted to his vendors in RSA No.469 of 2011(O&M) -3- partition proceedings, which has been finalised even upto this Court and hence, respondents-plaintiffs could not sell the said specific khasra number to respondent-defendant. However, it has been rightly observed by learned first appellate Court that the present suit has not been filed by respondent-plaintiff on the basis of partition proceedings. Rather he has taken the plea that he had taken the possession from his vendors, at the time of execution of sale-deed and after six months of the same, he was dispossessed and, however, he has miserably failed to prove the said plea. Entire revenue record is in favour of respondent-defendant. He has been continuing in possession of this khasra number after execution of the sale deed. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 21.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge