RSA No.2850 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2850 of 2010 Date of decision: August 10, 2011. Gurdip Singh ... Appellant(s) v. Abinash Chander & Ors. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Malkeet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Vijay Lath, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present regular second appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of Bhajan Singh, plaintiff to the suit. Bhajan Singh had filed a suit for possession claiming the suit property, detail and description of which was given in the head note of the plaint, to be his ownership. It was pleaded in the suit that the respondent-defendant, in an earlier suit, has admitted himself to be the tenant of the appellant-plaintiff Bhajan Singh and, therefore, he had served a notice upon him under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, terminating the tenancy as the appellant-plaintiff intended to start his own business in the shop. Upon notice, defendant caused appearance and filed a written statement. He raised many preliminary issues, viz, regarding locus standi of the plaintiff to the suit, and suit being bad by non-joinder of necessary RSA No.2850 of 2010 -: 2 :- parties. He admitted that in the earlier suit he had recognized the plaintiff as the landlord of the shop but later on he came to know that Gurmej Kaur had become owner of the shop as she had purchased the same in an auction and furthermore, Gurmej Kaur had thereafter mortgaged the suit property with possession with Ramesh Chander, brother of the defendant. Shri Malkeet Singh, Counsel appearing for the appellant, has been candid enough to state that except the admission of the defendant in the previous suit, there is no document available with him to assert his ownership over the suit property. The trial court took into consideration the certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 3rd September, 1993 passed by the court of Sub Judge Second Class, Nawanshahar and held as under:- “15. ... In para No.3 of this judgment, it is mentioned that Gurmej Kaur took the plea in her pleadings in the said suit that she had purchased this property in public auction in execution of a money decree against Bhajan Singh and that on the basis of sale certificate issued by the court she got possession of the suit property and that she had mortgaged this property with possession with one Ramesh. The said suit was decided on 3.9.1993 vide which the defendant was restrained to dispossess Avinash Chander from the shop in dispute illegally and forcibly except in due course of law. In the said civil suit, claim of Gurmej Kaur qua the shop in dispute came to the knowledge of Bhajan Singh plaintiff, but in the present suit, he has not made Gurmej Kaur as party. The conduct of the parties is very material in civil litigation. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff himself has deposed in his cross examination that RSA No.2850 of 2010 -: 3 :- he or panchayat has no document of title regarding the property in question and he does not know whether Gurmej Kaur has also sold this shop in question to one Karnail Singh. In view of this statement of plaintiff, it is clear that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff without having any document of title.” The court also dismissed the suit for non-impleadment of Ramesh Chander who was considered to be a proper and necessary party. The finding returned by the trial court has been upheld by the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court held that there is no dispute that there was no documentary evidence regarding title of the shop in question with the plaintiff to stake his claim. The court also took into consideration the admission made by Bhajan Singh plaintiff in which he admitted that Gurmej Kaur had purchased the property in public auction. After considering the entire gamut of the case, the lower appellate court held as under:- “20. ... I find that there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the title of the plaintiff Bhajan Singh in the suit property. The entire case of the plaintiff is based solely on the admission which has been discussed above. In the absence of any other evidence to establish the factum of ownership of plaintiff, this court is not inclined to hold the plaintiff to be owner of the shop in dispute.” Shri Malkeet Singh further canvassed that the admission made by the respondent-defendant binds him and, thus, the appellant-plaintiff is to be considered as landlord and is to be held entitled to possession of the suit RSA No.2850 of 2010 -: 4 :- property. The courts below have given due consideration to the facts and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove himself to be owner, therefore, he cannot be held entitled to possession of the shop, especially when subsequent to the admission, Gurmej Kaur had purchased the property in public auction in satisfaction of the decree against the present appellant. In view of the concurrent findings of fact returned by both the courts below, no interference is warranted, especially when Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has failed to formulate any question of law much less substantial one for the consideration of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] August 10, 2011. Judge kadyan