Regular Second Appeal No.667 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.667 OF 2011 DATE OF DECISION: 10 th MARCH, 2011 Vijay Kumar .... Appellant Versus Devi Ram .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Vijay Kumar defendant having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Devi Ram filed suit against Vijay Kumar defendant-appellant alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. He already had half share in it and Kanwar Singh had other half share. After partition between them, Kanwar Singh sold his share to Usha Devi vide sale deed dated 01.02.2000. Usha Devi sold the same to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 21.06.2002. Defendant threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property without any right, necessitating the filing of the instant suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and from dispossessing him threfrom. The defendant broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded Regular Second Appeal No.667 of 2011 -2- that defendant is owner in possession of the suit property and plaintiff has no concern with the same. Sale by Kanwar Singh to Usha Devi and by Usha Devi to plaintiff was denied. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2009 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Nuh vide judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff has proved sale deed dated 01.02.2000 Exhibit P-3 whereby Kanwar Singh sold his share in the suit property to Usha Devi. Plaintiff has also proved sale deed dated 21.06.2002 Exhibit P-1, whereby Usha Devi sold the said share in the suit property to the plaintiff. On the other hand, defendant has relied on proceedings of some previous litigation. The defendant's case is that Yad Ram son of Kanwar Singh had agreed to sell the share of Kanwar Singh in suit property to the defendant and in previous litigation between defendant and Kanwar Singh etc., compromise was effected in first appeal on 26.07.2003, whereby Kanwar Singh admitted the sale made by his son Yad Ram in favour of the defendant vide sale deed dated 15.02.2000. Kanwar Singh vide sale deed dated 01.02.2000 had already sold his share in the suit property to Usha Devi. Consequently subsequent sale thereof by Kanwar Singh's son Yad Ram on behalf of Kanwar Singh to the defendant and subsequent compromise dated 26.07.2003 effected by Kanwar Singh with defendant can have no bearing on the rights of the plaintiff, who purchased the Regular Second Appeal No.667 of 2011 -3- suit property from Usha Devi because Kanwar Singh had already sold the suit property to Usha Devi and thereafter Kanwar Singh was left with no right, title or interest therein so as to confer any such right, title or interest in the suit property in favour of the defendant by effecting compromise on 26.07.2003, thereby admitting the sale made by his son Yad Ram to the defendant vide sale deed dated 15.02.2000. Neither Yad Ram was having right to sell the suit property on behalf of Kanwar Singh to defendant because Kanwar Singh had already sold it to Usha Devi nor Kanwar Singh had any right to admit the sale made by his son Yad Ram to defendant to be correct when Kanwar Singh himself was left with no right, title or interest in the suit property. The courts below have, therefore, rightly found the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit property. It may be added that Yad Ram had allegedly executed agreement on behalf of his father Kanwar Singh co-sharer in favour of the defendant. However, since Kanwar Singh himself had sold his share in the suit property to Usha Devi, Yad Ram had no right to sell it on behalf of his father to the defendant. In fact, sale made by Yad Ram to the defendant was set aside by the trial court in the civil suit filed by legal representatives of Yad Ram which was decreed by the trial court and it was in first appeal preferred in that suit by defendant herein that some compromise was effected with Kanwar Singh on 26.07.2003. However, any such compromise can have no bearing against the right of the plaintiff in the suit property, who was not party to the compromise. Kanwar Singh himself had no right, title or interest in the suit property and, therefore, Kanwar Singh by effecting compromise could not convey any right, title or interest in the suit property to the defendant. Plaintiff has, therefore, been rightly found to be owner in possession of the suit property. Regular Second Appeal No.667 of 2011 -4- Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of the plaintiff does not suffer from any illegality or perversity so as to warrant interference in second appeal. The said finding is not based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. On the other hand, the said finding is justified by the evidence on record and is supported by reasons recorded by the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that plaintiff is not proved to be in possession of the suit property and, therefore, no injunction could be granted to the plaintiff. The contention is misconceived. Plaintiff is proved to be owner in possession of the suit property in view of the sale deeds proved by him. The defendant himself claimed title in the suit property from Kanwar Singh. However, plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Usha Devi who had purchased it from Kanwar Singh prior to defendant. Consequently it does not lie in the mouth of the defendant to contend that plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. On the contrary, plaintiff's evidence, which is cogent and reliable, is sufficient to prove that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant 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. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 10.03.2011 'raj'