IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 764 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2011. Sanjeet. ...... APPELLANT. Versus Om Parkash and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.2115-C of 2011. The application is allowed subject to just exceptions. CM No.2116-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, appellant is allowed to make good the deficiency in court fee. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in the court fee. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. RSA No.764 of 2011(O&M) RSA No.764 of 2011. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak dismissing the suit filed by the present appellant- plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff and have gone through the whole record including impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, the present appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for decree for declaration to the effect that sale deed dated 24.09.1998 executed by respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of respondents- defendants No.3 to 5, is illegal, and void, on the plea that he is in possession of the same by virtue of an agreement to sell executed in his favour by respondents No.1 and 2 on 12.08.1998. He has also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from dispossessing him and from interfering in his possession over the land in dispute. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants No.3 to 5 have denied that any agreement was executed by respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 in their favour. Rather, plea has been taken that respondents- defendants No.1 and 2 were owners in possession of the land in dispute, who had sold the same for a valuable consideration to them vide registered sale deed dated 24.09.1998 and since then they have been continuing in possession which was delivered to them by respondent-defendant No.1. 2 RSA No.764 of 2011(O&M) On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Rohtak. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff is that even the trial Court has held that the appellant-plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute and that however, the first appellate Court has reversed the said finding even without any appeal being filed by respondents-defendants. However, this plea cannot be accepted. Sale deed in favour of respondents No.3 to 5 by respondents No.1 and 2 has been duly proved. Land in dispute is a vacant plot. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned District Judge, Rohtak that possession of vacant plot is taken to be that of owner. Present appellant-plaintiff cannot be said to be owner of the plot in dispute on the basis of alleged agreement to sell executed in his favour by respondents No.1 and 2. Moreover, as per plea of present appellant-plaintiff, there was threat to his possession in June, 2003 when the present suit was filed. However, the alleged agreement is dated 12.08.1998 and the sale deed was executed just after about one month twelve days of the alleged agreement in favour of the present appellant-plaintiff. Hence, it is rightly observed that had respondents No.3 to 5 been not in possession, they would not have kept mum for a period of about five years and would have allowed the appellant- plaintiff to remain in possession. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned 3 RSA No.764 of 2011(O&M) judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 16, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 4