IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular Second Appeal No. 3595 of 2007 Date of decision: 4.2.2008 Sukhdev Singh --- Appellant Versus Sujan Kaur and others --- Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is defendant’s appeal against whom a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents for possession of the suit land had been dismissed by the trial court, vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2006 but on appeal by them, the same has been decreed by the first appellate court, vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2007. Brief facts of the case are that earlier the suit land measuring 8 Kanal comprising Khewat No. 5, Khatauni No. 8, Khasra No. 643(7-9), Khewat No. 6, Khatauni No.9, Khasra No. 643 Min-(3-7) situated in the revenue estate of village Mehta, District Barnala, was owned by one Ajmer Singh and after his death, plaintiff no.1 and one Jaspal Singh, being his widow and son respectively, became owners in RSA No. 3595 of 2007 possession thereof. After the demise of Jaspal Singh, his estate was inherited by the remaining plaintiffs and Mutation No. 3559 in this regard was also sanctioned in their favour. Defendant-appellant made an abortive attempt to take forcible possession of the suit land on the strength of an agreement to sell dated 6.7.1984 allegedly executed by Ajmer Singh in his favour. The defendant, however, managed to get the entries in Khasra Girdawari in respect of the suit land made in his favour by moving an application for correction and on the basis thereof, he took forcible possession of the suit land on 10.12.2004. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs that Ajmer Singh had never executed any sale deed in pursuance of the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs, thus, claimed that they were entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land being owners thereof. The defendant, in the written statement, while denying averments of the plaintiffs stated that Ajmer Singh had entered into an agreement to sell dated 6.7.1984 and the possession of the suit land was delivered to him by Ajmer Singh on the same day. His possession over the suit land since 6.7.1984 was open and hostile and, therefore, he had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence available on record, found that the defendant was in possession of the suit land pursuant to the agreement to sell, Exhibit D-1, wherefrom it was further evident that total sale consideration had already been paid by the defendant to Ajmer Singh and only sale deed remained to be executed. In this backdrop, it was further held that the defendant had a right to 2 RSA No. 3595 of 2007 protect his possession of the suit land and thus, the suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was not maintainable. The trial court further found the plaintiffs guilty of concealment of material facts from the court. The possession of the defendant over the suit land was, however, not proved to be adverse, hostile to the public as well as the plaintiffs. Suit thus resulted in dismissal. The first appellate court after re-appraisal of the evidence differed with the findings returned by the trial court. It was observed that the finding of the trial court that possession of the suit land was delivered to the defendant on 6.7.1984, i.e. the date on which the aforesaid agreement Exhibit D-1 was executed, was not in unison with the contents of the alleged agreement to sell as there is no recital therein with regard to the delivery of possession of the suit land to the defendant. It was further observed by the first appellate court that even the revenue record also did not indicate the possession of the defendant. It was also observed that even though the entire sale consideration was paid by the defendant to Ajmer Singh at the time of execution of agreement to sell, but mere execution of an agreement to sell would not confer any title on the proposed purchaser and title could be acquired by the defendant only by means of a sale deed in his favour. Holding the plea of the defendant of being in possession of the suit land as totally false, the appeal was allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. 3 RSA No. 3595 of 2007 The findings returned by the first appellate court are based on correct appreciation of the evidence available on record, particularly, the revenue record viz. jamabandis Exhibits P-1 to P-5, to which the presumption of truth is attached. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the counsel for the appellant warranting interference by this Court in second appeal. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) February 04, 2008 JUDGE *MALIK* 4