RSA No.3917 of 2008 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3917 of 2008 (O & M) Date of Decision: 04.03.2011 Chandgi Ram ……Appellant Versus Rajender Kumar and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5. None for remaining respondents. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Chandgi Ram-plaintiff, having substantially succeeded in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff’s case is that he purchased suit land measuring 7 kanals 4 marlas vide sale deed dated 23.08.1988 from Vidya Rattan son of Ram Parsad and suit land measuring 5 kanals 8 marlas vide sale deed dated 05.12.1991 from Chandrawali proforma defendant- respondent No.6 (widow of Ram Parsad) and accordingly plaintiff is owner in possession of the said suit lands. Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1994 in Civil suit No.11 of 1994 titled Rajender etc. vs. Smt. Murti etc. suffered in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by defendants No.3 to 5 and by Murti and Naraini were also challenged RSA No.3917 of 2008 (O & M) - 2 - in the suit. It was pleaded that Murti and Naraini had already died long before the filing of the previous suit. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 only contested the suit. They broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that sale deeds set up by the plaintiffs are illegal, null and void as plaintiffs’ vendors Vidya Rattan and Chandrawali were not owners of the suit lands at the time of execution of the sale deeds. It was denied that plaintiff has become owner in possession of the suit lands. Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1994 were claimed to be legal and valid. It was alleged that defendant Nos.3 to 5 had purchased 2 kanals 9 marlas land and 4 kanals 4 marlas land on different dates. Counter claim was made that sale deeds dated 23.08.1988 and 05.12.1991 set up by the plaintiff are illegal, null and void and not binding on defendants No.3 to 5. The plaintiff filed replication to controvert the stand of contesting defendants and also to controvert their counter claim. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 25.11.2005 partly decreed the plaintiffs’ suit except land measuring 1 kanal 4 marlas in sale deed dated 23.08.1988. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide judgment and decree dated 19.08.2008. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. RSA No.3917 of 2008 (O & M) - 3 - Both the Courts below after analyzing the evidence have come to the conclusion that Vidya Ratan sold 1kanal 4 marlas land in excess of his share to the plaintiff. The said finding is supported by documentary evidence on record. Reasons have been assigned by the Courts below for arriving at the said finding. The same is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said concurrent finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that legal heirs of Ram Parsad had challenged the sale deed dated 23.08.1988 executed by Vidya Rattan, but in that suit, it was held that Vidya Rattan had not sold the land in excess of his share. This contention has no merit because admittedly defendant Nos.1 to 5 herein were not party to the said suit which was instituted by legal heirs of Ram Parsad. Consequently, any finding recorded by the Court in the said suit will have no bearing against the rights of defendant Nos.1 to 5. 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. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 04.03.2011 A.kaundal