RSA No.2584 of 1987 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2584 of 1987 Date of Decision: 8.3.2010 Atma Ram & others ...Appellants Versus Om Prakash & others .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. Neelesh, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. ..... Alok Singh, J. 1. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs-appellants challenging judgment dated 6.6.1986 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Gurgaon by which learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration with permanent injunction over the agricultural land measuring 52 Kanals 9 Marlas, to the extent of ¼ share situated at Village Garhi Harsaru, Tehsil Gurgaon and further challenged in the present appeal, is judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 2.4.1987 dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiff. 2. The brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs along with Hardwari Lal (deceased) husband of Chandrawati, present defendant No.3, were the joint owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 52 Kanals 9 Marlas, to the extent of ¼ share situated at Village Garhi Harsaru, Tehsil Gurgaon, along with residential and commercial properties. However, there took place a comprise among RSA No.2584 of 1987 2 them whereby said Hardwari Lal relinquished his rights in the said agricultural land and all other residential properties and shops except two shops with two Kothas and two Chaubaras thereon along with Chowk and stair case and a plot of land having two chappars. Hardwari Lal executed and got registered a Dasthardari deed on 21.6.1986, admitting the fact that he had given up all his rights in these joint properties except two shops and a plot of land and further that plaintiffs had become the absolute owners of the remaining properties. However, defendant No.3 the widow of said Hardwari Lal illegally and wrongly sold away 5/99th share in the said land in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 vide a registered sale deed dated 6.7.1982, for an ostensible sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. As Hardwari Lal had already relinquished his rights in the suit, defendant No.3 was not competent and had no right to alienate any share in that land. As such, the impugned sale deed dated 6.7.1982 is void, illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, in these circumstances, instituted this suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that they are the exclusive owners in possession of the suit land and residential and commercial properties. A decree of prohibitory injunction has also been claimed restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs on the suit property. 3. Defendants contested the suit and controverted the allegations of the plaintiffs. They admitted that Hardwari Lal, husband of defendant No.3 was the owner of the suit land measuring 52 Kanals 9 Marlas, to the extent of 5/99th share but denied that said Hardwari Lal had relinquished his rights in that land. They further alleged that Hardwari Lal had executed a Will of his share in favour of defendant No.3. Further that, defendants No.1 and 2 are bona fide purchaser in good faith without notice of the alleged compromise. Further that, RSA No.2584 of 1987 3 defendant No.3 was fully competent to make this alienation and was in possession of the suit land. They pleaded that they purchased the suit land after taking reasonable care to ascertain that defendant No.3 had power to make this transfer. According to them, the alleged compromise was never acted upon. They further submitted that even otherwise, the plots and manure pits allotted to Haridwari Lal fall out of the alleged compromise and that the defendants-purchasers being in actual possession of the plot so allotted to Hardwari Lal in consolidation proceedings, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to claim any relief against them. Plaintiffs reiterated the stand taken by them in the plaint. 4. Learned trial Court framed following issues:- 1. Whether the disputed compromise was effected as alleged in Para No.2 of the plaint. If so to what effect?OPP 2. Whether the sale deed dated 6.7.1982 by defendant No.3 in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 is void, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs, as alleged?OPP 3. Whether defendants No.1 and 2 are bona fide purchasers as alleged. If so, its effect?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present for?OPD. 5. Relief. 5. Learned trial Cour, having recorded clear findings of fact, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment passed by the learned trial Court plaintiff has preferred first appeal and First Appellate Court also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of facts that plaintiff-appellant could not prove his title over the property RSA No.2584 of 1987 4 in dispute. Details of residential and commercial properties regarding which reliefs were claimed were not given. 7. Memo of appeal does not state any substantial question of law as required by Section 100 (3) CPC. In my opinion no substantial question of law is involved in the present case. Present case stood decided on the questions of fact, which cannot be agitated before Second Appellate Court, without there being any substantial question of law. 8. The present appeal is devoid of any merit, hence, appeal is dismissed with costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 08.03.2010 sharmila