RSA No.4176 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4176 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 08.09.2010. Ajit Singh and others .……Appellants Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousuf , Advocate for the appellants. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.12628-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.12629-C of 2009 For reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 15 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal. Plaintiffs Ajit Singh, his son and wife have filed the instant second appeal having failed in both the Courts below. The plaintiffs alleged that suit land was allotted to Santa Singh and Bhagat Singh (predecessors of defendant Nos.2 to 19) in lieu of their land left in Pakistan, but the said allotment was cancelled on 03.07.1961 on the ground that the said allottees were holding land in Pakistan as mortgagees and not as owners. The said cancellation was upheld under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. After cancellation of allotment of the suit land to RSA No.4176 of 2009 (O & M) -2- Santa Singh and Bhagat Singh, the suit land was allotted by defendant No.1-Union of India to Pritam Kaur, who bequeathed it to her husband's younger brother Bagicha Singh and accordingly Bagicha Singh became owner of the suit land. He sold the same to the plaintiffs vide three sale deeds dated 16.09.1981 and three more sale deeds dated 23.09.1981, each for Rs.20,000/- i.e for total consideration for Rs.1,20,000/-. Accordingly, plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land. However, defendants No.2 to 19 claim that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.1994 has declared defendant Nos.2 to 19 to be owners of the suit land. However, said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court is not binding on the plaintiffs as they or their predecessors were not party to the said litigation. The plaintiffs also claimed to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land. They also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit land. In the alternative, mandatory injunction directing defendant No.1 to allot some other land to the plaintiffs in lieu of suit land, has also been claimed. Defendants inter alia pleaded that they have been held to be owners of the suit land by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.09.1994 and the instant suit is barred by res judicata. Plaint allegations were denied. It was alleged that Bagicha Singh had no right, title or interest in the suit land and the alleged sale deeds by him in favour of plaintiffs are illegal, null and void. Various other pleas were also raised. RSA No.4176 of 2009 (O & M) -3- Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.2005 dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs also stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Defendant Nos.2 to 19 successfully challenged the cancellation of the allotment of suit land to their predecessors Santa Singh and Bhagat Singh. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 06.09.1994 upheld the claim of defendant Nos.2 to 19 and declared them to be owners of the suit land. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot be said to be owners of the suit land. Possession of the suit land has also been delivered to defendant Nos.2 to 19 on 27.09.2000 pursuant to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, plaintiffs moved application before Settlement Commissioner which has been dismissed by Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 27.04.1999. Since cancellation of suit land in favour of Bhagat Singh and Santa Singh was set aside, defendant Nos.2 to 19 being their successorsare owners of the suit land as declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the plaintiffs cannot be held to be owners thereof. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellants/plaintiffs are bona fide purchasers of the suit land. However, this plea has also been negatived by both the Courts RSA No.4176 of 2009 (O & M) -4- below. Concurrent finding by the Courts below in this regard does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference in second appeal. On the contrary, the plaintiffs purchased the suit land during pendency of the litigation which had been initiated by defendant Nos.2 to 19. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 19 belong to the same village which is a small village and it cannot be said that plaintiffs were not aware of the said litigation. Consequently, plaintiffs cannot be said to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. It may be added that plaintiffs before purchasing the suit land did not make appropriate inquiry regarding title thereof. Plaintiff No.1 stated in his cross-examination that before purchasing the suit land, he had only seen the boundaries thereof and did not verify anything else. It is thus manifest that plaintiffs cannot be termed to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. On the other hand, plaintiffs purchased the suit land during pendency of the litigation and for this reason as well, they cannot be held to be bona fide purchasers of the suit land. 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 the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. 08.09.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE