IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2756 of 2005 Date of Decision : April 01, 2008 Subhash .....Appellant Versus Shehajada Ram and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1 T.P.S. MANN, J. On being non-suited by both the learned lower Courts, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure before this Court praying therein for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees and for the grant of declaration to the effect that sale deed No. 67 dated 3.4.1981 in respect of land measuring 12 kanals 5 marlas allegedly for Rs. 38,000/- and sale deed No. 124 dated 6.4.1983 in respect of land measuring 8 kanals allegedly for Rs. 35,000/- executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 were illegal, null and void, non-existent and not binding upon his ownership rights and consequently for possession of the land in dispute as the sale deeds were without consideration and without any legal necessity. On the basis of the evidence brought on record by way of receipts Exs. D2 and D4, learned trial Court held that defendant No. 1 Regular Second Appeal No. 2756 of 2005 -2- was able to prove that the consideration amounts of Rs 35,000/- and Rs. 38,000/- were paid to defendant No. 2 and the said amount was, thereafter utilised by defendant No. 2 for redeeming the land and for the marriages of his two daughters, besides better management of his land. Further, that both the sale-deeds were for consideration as mentioned therein. Even if the plaintiff had been able to prove that he belonged to the Jat community and governed by customary law but as he failed to prove that the alienation by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was without legal necessity or without consideration, he would not succeed in getting a favourable order from the civil suit. These findings of facts have been upheld by the learned first Appellate Court. There is no material available on the file which could impel this Court and that too in a second appeal, which could only be confined to some substantial question of law, to take a view contrary to the one taken by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by learned counsel for the appellant, arise for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed ( T.P.S. MANN ) APRIL 01, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO