Regular Second Appeal No. 2516 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2516 of 2011 Date of decision : June 01, 2011 Ved Parkash ....Appellant versus Ramesh Kumar ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Ved Parkash who was successful in the trial court but has been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Ramesh filed suit against the defendant- appellant. Plaintiff's case is that he purchased 2 kanals 13 marlas land in suit from Joginder Singh vide sale deed dated 29.8.2003 and became owner in possession thereof. Mutation on the basis of the sale deed was entered but defendant objected to the said mutation. Accordingly, Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide order dated 9.6.2004 rejected the said mutation. The Regular Second Appeal No. 2516 of 2011 -2- plaintiff challenged the said order in the suit and claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking forcible possession of the suit land from the plaintiff and from interfering in his possession thereon. Defendant alleged that road of Public Works Department (PWD) is in existence at the spot and therefore, impugned order dated 9.6.2004 rejecting mutation has been rightly passed. It was pleaded that land of PWD could not be sold by Joginder Singh to the plaintiff and therefore, sale deed dated 29.8.2003 is illegal. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.2009 dismissed plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2011 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands decreed. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel the appellant and perused the case file. It is admitted case of both the parties as borne out from the pleadings that Joginder Singh purchased 35 kanals 6 marlas land from State Government. Out of it, Joginder Singh sold 32 kanals 13 malars land to one Piara Singh who sold the same to defendant. Joginder Singh sold the remaining 2 kanals 13 marlas land which is the suit land to the plaintiff vide Regular Second Appeal No. 2516 of 2011 -3- registered sale deed dated 29.8.2003. Accordingly, the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellant laid emphasis on the contention that road of PWD is in existence in the suit land as depicted in earlier jamabandies and as also found on spot inspection by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade during mutation proceedings. However, without deciding whether any such road is in existence in the suit land or not suffice to mention that this fact is irrelevant for adjudication of the lis. Irrespective of whether any road is in existence in suit land or not, the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land. Plaintiff's vendor Joginder Singh purchased the suit land along with other land from State Government. Consequently, if the State Government also sold the land in which road was allegedly in existence, the road would no longer belong to PWD or to State Government. The suit land became land of Joginder Singh who sold it to the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff has become owner of the suit land. Defendant has no right, title or interest whatsoever in the suit land. In view of almost admitted factual position, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed by the lower appellate court and there is no escape from the conclusion that plaintiff being owner in possession of the suit land was entitled to succeed. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Finding of the lower appellate court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. The said finding does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of Regular Second Appeal No. 2516 of 2011 -4- evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not require interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. This appeal raises no question of law much less substantial question of law for adjudication. The appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) June 01, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'