C.R NO.2242 OF 2010 (o & m) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R NO.2242 OF 2010 (o & m) DECIDED ON : 14.05.2010 HarnekSingh ...Petitioner versus Bhola Rani and another ...Respondents C.R NO. 2243 OF 2010 Harnek Singh ...Petitioner versus Bhola Rani and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Jaidka, Advocate, for the respondents . K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) Vide this order, I shall dispose of two revision petitions bearing No.2242 of 2010 and 2243 of 2020. Brief facts of the case are that Harnek Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into his possession in respect of plot measuring 200 square yards as mentioned in the plaint. C.R NO.2242 OF 2010 (o & m) -2- It is alleged that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff now petitioner from Balwinder Singh s/o Sudagar Singh vide registered Sale Deed dated 20.11.2007 for a consideration of Rs.3,60,000/-. Balwinder Singh purchased the suit property from Lal Singh s/o Puran Singh, being attorney holder of Baldev Singh s/o Hari Singh, vide Sale Deed dated 31.03.1995. Mutation to that effect has also been entered in the name of plaintiff-petitioner. The defendants are trying to take forcible possession. Defendant No.1 filed separate written statement taking preliminary objections that the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts; plaintiff is a stranger to the suit property and has no right over the property. The Sale Deed claimed by the plaintiff in his favour is forged and fabricated document and does not belong to the suit property. In fact, defendant No.1 purchased a house constructed on land measuring 200 square yards consisting of one room and boundary wall comprised in Khasara Nos.760, 761, 762, 763, Khata No.111/128 now bearing House No.152, Street No.3, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. The suit property was purchased by the answering defendant vide Sale Deed dated 25.04.1997 from defendant No.2-Saroj Bala w/o Ramesh Kumar and mutation in this regard has been attested. Defendant No.1 filed counter claim for declaration that she is the owner in possession of the house measuring 200 C.R NO.2242 OF 2010 (o & m) -3- square yards, as detailed above. An application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was also filed. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement taking similar pleas along with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff now petitioner. However, the application of defendants restraining the plaintiff-petitioner from interfering into her possession was allowed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said order dated 03.10.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, the plaintiff-petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 15.02.2010. Still feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 15.02.2010, two revision petitions have been preferred by the plaintiff-petitioner. I have heard both the sides carefully and have gone through the records carefully. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on the record, reached to the conclusion that it is defendant No.1 who is in possession over the suit property and plaintiff is not in possession. Both the Courts below have also taken into account the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner to the police authorities that the possession of the property has not been C.R NO.2242 OF 2010 (o & m) -4- handed over to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Sale Deed executed in favour of defendant No.1, on the southern side 25 feet street has been mentioned, whereas in the original Sale Deed executed by Baldev Singh in favour of Saroj Bala street has been shown for western side. It is argued that the property purchased by defendant No.1 is different property. I have carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in the same. The photocopy of the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff has also been placed on the file. From the perusal of the same, it is revealed that vacant plot has been purchased by him. However, in the photocopy of the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.1, it is mentioned that a room and boundary wall has been constructed. It is not disputed during the course of arguments that a room and boundary wall are there. So, in view of the definite finding of both the Courts below, no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. Both the revision petitions are without any merit and the same stands dismissed. MAY 14, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE