R.S.A No. 1648 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : May 13, 2010 1. R.S.A No. 1648 of 2008 (O&M) Smt. Pritam Kaur and others vs Jaimal Singh, 2. R.S.A No.3249 of 2008(O&M) Jaimal Singh vs Pritam Kaur and others. *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.1648 of 2008. Ms. Poonam Sambhar, Advocate for the appellants in RSA No.3249 of 2008. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) These two cross appeals viz RSA Nos. 1648 and 3249 of 2008 arise from the same suit and consequently are being decided by a common order. Jaimal Singh filed a suit for possession against Pritam Kaur and her children claiming that the house in which she was staying had actually been sold by her brothers to him. The trial Court held that Jaimal Singh had not been able to prove the title of his vendors, as also the identity of the property and consequently dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court, R.S.A No. 1648 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: however, found that the identity of the property was established and further that the house in dispute had been allotted to the father of Pritam Kaur. It further found that the Will alleged to have been executed by the father in favour of two brothers was not proved. Consequently, the lower appellate Court held that vendors of Jaimal Singh could only transfer their share (2/7th since their father had left behind 7 L.Rs) and partly allowed the appeal and held that Jaimal Singh had validly purchased 2/7th share of the property. The suit was, however, dismissed holding that in the circumstances, Jaimal Singh could not sue for possession but had to sue for partition. In RSA No.1648 of 2008 which has been filed by Pritam Kaur and others, the following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the suit for possession simpliciter in the present case was maintainable ? (ii) Whether on account of inconsistency and proper establishment of property where even documentary evidence do not tally, the appellant can claim the property ? (iii) Whether a person can pass a better title than what he possesses ? (iv) Whether the suit is itself bad for mis-joinder/non- joinder for necessary parties as even the alleged vendor was not arrayed as party ? (v) Whether there exists clear and flagrant violation of law when even the claim put forth by the appellants for adverse possession was not considered in right prospective ? R.S.A No. 1648 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: (vi) Whether there exists total mis-leading and mis- appreciation of the facts and evidence ? It would be seen that questions No. (ii), (iii) and (vi) are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. As regards question No. (i), I do not see how this question arises since this question has been answered in favour of the appellants. As regards questions No. (iv) and (v), no arguments have been addressed thereon. In RSA No.3249 of 2008 which has been filed by Jaimal Singh, the following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the lower appellate Court has misread the documentary evidence on record ? (ii) Whether the findings given by the lower appellate Court are contrary to law because of want of any pleading in support of their findings ? (iii) Whether the lower appellate Court has committed a patent error in setting up a new case for the defendants ? (iv) Whether the lower appellate Court has misread the written statement and the evidence produced on record ?” It would be seen that all the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same so perverse as to be liable for interference under Section 100 of the CPC. R.S.A No. 1648 of 2008 (O&M) ::4:: Consequently, I find that the judgment of the lower appellate Court deserves to be upheld. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main appeals have since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) May 13, 2010. JUDGE `kk'