R.S.A.No. 2173 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2173 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.5.2011 Khairati Ram and others ......Appellants Versus Raj Kumari and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Ms.Maninder Kaur, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that the sale deed dated 9.3.2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 was illegal and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. Father of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property about 20 years ago from Waryam Singh, father of defendant No.1. Since then the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land. The possession of the plaintiffs was open, continuous, peaceful and lawful and defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest to sell the suit land to defendants No.2 to 6. R.S.A.No. 2173 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that he had already sold the suit land to defendants No.2 to 6 vide registered sale deed dated 9.3.2001 and had handed over the possession to them and hence, he was not a necessary party. Defendants No.2 to 6, in their written statement, averred that they had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 22.2.2002. On 30.9.1964, father of defendant No.1 had sold 4 kanals 18 marlas of land out of khasra No.92//22/2 to Buti Ram. Mutation was sanctioned in this regard. However, at the time of preparation of record of rights, possession of Buti Ram had been wrongly shown qua the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permenent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 5. Whether defendants No.2 to 6 are entitled for relief of declaration as prayed for in counter claim ? OPD (defendants no.2 to 6) 6. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.2009. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an appeal and the same R.S.A.No. 2173 of 2011 (O&M) 3 was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.10.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. In the present case, the plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit property. The case of the plaintiffs was that their father had purchased the suit property from the father of defendant No.1. However, the plaintiffs failed to prove on record the sale deed executed by Waryam Singh in favour of Buti Ram. The plaintiffs although took up the plea that they had become owners by way of adverse possession but had failed to substantiate the said plea by leading cogent evidence in this regard. Admittedly, Waryam Singh, father of defendant No.1 was owner of the suit property and after the death of Waryam Singh, defendant No.1 inherited the suit property and could execute the sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 being owner of the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 31, 2011 anita