Regular Second Appeal No.2666 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2666 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 20, 2009 Maru Ram ...........Appellant Versus Des Raj and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Hari Om Attri Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Des Raj filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking possession of the plot. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.2004. Aggrieved by the same, defendant filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.2009 Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar in para 2 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2.The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal as emanating from the trial court record are that plaintiff originally filed suit with averments that he is owner in possession of plot No.30, as detained in head note of plaint, since the date of purchase, situated at Manohar Colony, Patel Nagar Hisar, which he had purchased, from Shiv Dayal vide registered sale deed dated Regular Second Appeal No.2666 of 2009 (O&M) 2 25.10.1978. It was averred that he made construction of a latrine, bathroom and gate but in his absence the defendant No.1 Maru Ram, despite the injunction order not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff over the above said plot, granted by the court, forcibly, illegally and unlawfully encroached upon the plot in question on 9.9.2001, when the plaintiff was away to Elanabad, district Sirsa, in violation of the orders of the court. Suit was amended by plaintiff to claim possession of plot. It was pleaded that the plaintiff asked the defendant No.1 to hand over the possession of the plot but the defendant did not accede to his request and hence the present suit with the prayer that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the above-said plot. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the plot in dispute as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint and the defendant has taken the possession of the same forcibly during the pendency of the suit?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession in respect of plot in dispute against the defendant ?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD Regular Second Appeal No.2666 of 2009 (O&M) 3 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 5. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The case of the plaintiff is that he had purchased plot No.30 in question vide sale deed dated 25.10.1978 and had also got the possession of the said plot . However, defendant No.1 had started interfering in his peaceful possession and he filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 had, however, encroached upon the plot in question. The case of the defendant, on the other hand, is that in fact, he had purchased plot No.30 in the year 1991 vide agreement to sell dated 14.8.1991. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their case. Plaintiff, in order to prove his case, proved on record the sale deed dated 25.10.1978 and site plan attached with the same as Exhibit P1/A. As per the same, the plaintiff had purchased the plot in dispute from Shiv Dayal. In order to establish the ownership of vendor Shiv Dayal with regard to plot in dispute, plaintiff also proved on record the sale deeds Exhibits P4 and P5. Local Commissioner appointed by the Court gave description of the boundaries of Plot No.30 as alleged by defendant No.1 in his statement. However, merely on the basis of the report of the Local Commissioner, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had failed to establish the identity of the plot in question. Plaintiff has placed reliance on sale deed dated 25.10.1978 Regular Second Appeal No.2666 of 2009 (O&M) 4 (Exhibit P1) to base his claim with regard to the plot in question. On the other hand, the defendant, has based his claim on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.8.1991. The agreement to sell does not confer any title and in these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff was owner of the plot in dispute. Plaintiff has also established on record that earlier the plot in question was owned by Manohar Lal and Ranjit and they transferred the same to Sant Lal and widow of Sant Lal transferred the same to Shiv Dayal from whom the plaintiff purchased the same in the year 1978. Since the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the plot in question during the pendency of the suit on 9.9.2001, the Courts below rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 20, 2009 arya