R. S. A. No. 1006 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1006 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : March 08, 2010 Ajmer Singh and others .... Appellants Vs. Prem Chand and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. R. S. Budhwar, Advocate for the applicant-appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 2930-C of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. C. M. No. 2931-C of 2010 : This is application for condonation of delay of 115 days in re- filing the appeal. The application is accompanied by affidavit. The application is, therefore, allowed and delay of 115 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. C. M. No. 2932-C of 2010 : This is application for bringing on record legal representatives of Sat Pal son of Punna Ram, who was appellant-defendant no.1 (v) in the lower appellate court. It is alleged in the application that Sat Pal left behind R. S. A. No. 1006 of 2010 (O&M) 2 wife, two daughters and a son, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, as his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are brought on record as legal representatives of Sat Pal (since deceased) and are permitted to file appeal as such. Main Appeal : This is second appeal by defendant no.2 and legal representatives of defendant no.1, claim of plaintiff/respondents having been allowed by both the courts below. Respondents filed suit for possession of suit land measuring 6 marlas comprised of khasra no.285 alleging that they purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 07.08.1997 and are, therefore, owners of the suit land, but defendant no.1, who was father of defendant no.2, got recorded his name in the revenue record in column of cultivation and the defendants forcibly took possession of the suit land. Defendants inter alia pleaded that Chhajju – owner of the suit land, agreed to sell the same to defendant no.1 vide writing dated 09.03.1981 and the defendants were already in possession of the suit property since the year 1952. Entire sale consideration was paid at the time of the aforesaid writing. Therefore, Chhajju had no right to sell the suit property to plaintiffs or anybody else except defendant no.1. It was pleaded that defendant no.1 has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession. The defendants have also raised construction in the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 06.05.2005, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by the defendants has since been dismissed by learned Additional R. S. A. No. 1006 of 2010 (O&M) 3 District Judge, Jagadhri, vide judgment and decree dated 13.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by defendant no.2 and legal representatives of defendant no.1. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The plaintiffs have produced sale deed Ex.P-1 executed by Chhajju – previous owner of the suit land. The plaintiffs thus became owners of the suit land in view of the aforesaid sale deed. Claim of the defendants is based on alleged writing dated 09.03.1981, said to be an agreement to sell the suit property by Chhajju in favour of defendant no.1. However, merely on the basis of agreement to sell, in the absence of any registered sale deed, defendant no.1 could not become owner of the suit land. Moreover, the said writing dated 09.03.1981 has also not been proved in evidence by the defendants. The defendants also pleaded ownership by adverse possession, but have miserably failed to substantiate the same. The defendants claimed possession under agreement to sell dated 09.03.1981 and therefore, the defendants could not plead adverse possession as well. Moreover, according to jamabandi Ex.P-2 for 1992-93 and jamabandi Ex.P-3 for 1982-83, Chhajju was owner as well as in possession of the suit property. The suit was instituted on 12.08.1997. Therefore, defendants were not even recorded to be in possession of the suit land in the revenue record for 12 years preceding the filing of the suit. Defendant no.1 had also filed suit against the plaintiffs in the year 1998, which was dismissed as withdrawn and this fact has even been concealed by defendants in the instant suit. Thus, examined from any angle, the defendants have no case. Both the courts below have properly appreciated the evidence. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below against the defendants. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner. The defendants had filed suit on the basis of alleged writing/agreement to sell R. S. A. No. 1006 of 2010 (O&M) 4 dated 09.03.1981, but the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn. It is thus apparent that the possession of the defendants over the suit property is unauthorized and without any right, title or interest. The suit has been rightly decreed by the courts below. The instant second appeal is without any merit. 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. March 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE