RSA No.2874 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2874 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 20, 2009 Smt.Anari Devi ...........Appellant Versus Nain Sukh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.P.S.Saini, Advocate for the respondents ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Anari Devi filed a suit for declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The said suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 6.9.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 5 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. Briefly stated, the plaintiff claimed to be absolute owner in possession of the plot in dispute by virtue of the sale deed executed by Sri Ram son of Pehlad Singh, for a consideration of Rs.46,000/-, vide dated January 13,1997. However, the houses of RSA No.2874 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the defendants are situated towards the northern wing of the plot in question, so they have evil designs to take forcible possession. The plaintiff made earnest requests to the defendants to admit her claim which remained un-fructified. All these facts and circumstances culminated in the institution of the suit. 3. On notice, the defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and resisted the suit tooth and nail having filed a written statement whereas defendants No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte in the trial court, vide order dated January 8,1999 as reflected in para No.4 of the judgment under challenge. 4. The contesting defendant No.1 vehemently denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute. Further, the allege vendor of this plot never resided at village Ibrahimpur, so he was not competent to execute the sale deed which is forged. 5. It is further pleaded that the answering defendant No.1 had filed a civil suit under titled “Nainsukh vs. Afla and others” in respect of the plot in question which was decreed on June 14, 1995. The defendants went in appeal which was dismissed. Thus, the impugned sale deed is bogus and forged as the alleged vendor Sri Ram had mentioned the wrong name of his grandfather. The suit property is ancestral in the hands of the defendant No.1 purchased by his grandfather and thus the defendant No.1 is owner in possession thereof. Lastly the suit deserves to be dismissed.” RSA No.2874 of 2008 (O&M) 3 On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs is owner in possession over the suit property?OPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 4.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is hit by principal of resjudicata?OPD 5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration basing her claim on the sale deed Exhibit PW2/2 dated 13.1.1997. As per the same, plaintiff had purchased the property in dispute being Ahata No.34, Ghar No. 55 from Siri Ram. However, as per the Exhibit PY, Ghar No.55 is described to be owned by Devia son of Dola. Alhough in the sale deed Siri Ram had described the name of his grandfather as Devia but in the earlier litigation, Exhibit D5, Siri Ram had appeared as a witness and had described the name of his grandfather as Budha. The statement of Siri Ram in the suit filed by defendant-Nain Sukh against Afla and others is Exhibit D5. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit property does not belong to Siri Ram and, hence, he could not pass any better title to the plaintiff. Afla,father-in-law of the plaintiff was defendant No.1 in the RSA No.2874 of 2008 (O&M) 4 suit filed by Nain Sukh bearing No. 334 dated 2.12.1991 (Exhibit D1). Exhibit D3 is the judgment passed in appeal filed by Afla and others. A perusal of the same reveals that the property in dispute in the said case was plot no.55 with regard to which present defendant No.1-Nain Sukh was held to be owner in possession . In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court, Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Sabina) Judge October 20, 2009 arya