RSA No.1118 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1118 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.8.2010 Sube Singh and others ...Appellants vs Sahab Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. C.M.No.3400 of 2010. Allowed as prayed subject to just exceptions. RSA No.1118 of 2010. This is plaintiffs' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby their suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from alienating and dispossessing the appellants from the suit land, was dismissed. As per the facts, as noticed by the courts below, one Sanwalia (predecessor-in-interest of the defendants) was owner of the suit land whereas Surja and Sultan (predecessors-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 1,2 and 3 respectively) were in possession of the suit land. It is the case of the appellants that Sanwalia vide agreement dated 26.2.1975 agreed to sell the suit land to Surja and Sultan (predecessors-in-interest of the appellants) and RSA No.1118 of 2010 (O&M) 2 received full consideration. Claiming themselves to be in possession of the suit land as prospective vendees and claiming their possession earlier to the aforesaid agreement as Gair Marusi, the present suit was brought by the appellants against the defendants to restrain them from alienating the suit land and also from dispossessing them. Defendant-respondents contested the suit. Various preliminary objections were raised in the written statement including that the appellants were neither in possession nor had any right in the suit land and have approached the Court suppressing the material facts. On merits, the averments of the plaint were controverted, inter alia, pleading that after the death of Sanwalia the defendants inherited the suit land vide mutation No.1438 dated 24.9.1991 and were in possession of the suit land as owners. It was specifically asserted that plaintiffs were neither in possession nor have any interest in the suit land; execution of the alleged agreement in favour of the plaintiffs was denied claiming the same to be illegal, forged and false. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. After perusing the evidence on record and considering the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed by the trial Court. Appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and decree. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal:- 1. Whether possession couple with agreement to sell is sufficient to file a suit for mandatory injunction to secure the RSA No.1118 of 2010 (O&M) 3 property ? 2. Whether alienating the suit property during the currency of the suit is impressible in law and void ? 3. Whether once the possession as well as agreement to sell have been admi8tted by the respondents on almost full consideration thereof could be resiled as registered sale deed has not been executed ? In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Courts below have failed to take note of the fact that the appellants were in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi even prior to the agreement dated 26.2.1975 and since they were already in possession of the suit land, they are seeking only non interference of the respondents in their peaceful possession over the suit land and, therefore, the present suit was maintainable. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that possession of the appellants over the suit land on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 26.2.21975 and prior to that as gair marusi tenant has not been proved. Moreover, they could prove their title in the suit property and, thus, the suit of the appellants for permanent injunction was not maintainable. Neither any material evidence on record in favour of the appellants has been ignored by the Courts below while recording the aforesaid findings of fact, nor any such material evidence could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, nor the counsel for the appellants could successfully argue before this Court that appellants have any right or title in the suit property on the basis of alleged agreement to sell in their favour. In RSA No.1118 of 2010 (O&M) 4 this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 24, 2010 rk