RSA No. 3251 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3251 of 2010 Date of decision: 05.12.2011 Bhagirath ....Appellant Vs. Devi Lal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment & decree dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, upholding the judgment dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad and dismissing his suit. Brief facts are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner of 1/5th share in the land measuring 74 Kanals 10 Marlas, including the 'abadi' land measuring 1 Kanal, situated within the revenue estate of village Dhingsara, as fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. He pleaded that out of the aforesaid 74 Kanals 10 Marlas, he being owner of 1/5th share, had sold 9 Kanals of land to the defendant-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the defendant') on 08.12.1992. Since he also had 1/5th share in the plot bearing Khasra No.736, measuring 4 Marlas, therefore, he constructed a pucca house over the said plot and raised RSA No. 3251 of 2010 2 boundary wall about 25 years back and he has been residing there since then. It was further pleaded that while selling 9 Kanals of land in favour of the defendant on 08.12.1992, he did not sell any portion out of the aforesaid plot measuring 4 Marlas, comprised of Khasra No.736. As such, the defendant has no right, title or interest in the said land, but he got entered the revenue entries showing himself to be the owner of 1/10th share of the property comprised in Khasra No. 736. The plaintiff has challenged the vires of those entries and has claimed that he is owner of 1/5th share of plot bearing Khasra No. 736, as he was owner of the remaining land to the extent of same share. Upon notice, the defendant while filing written statement, admitted the fact that the plaintiff was previously the owner of 1/5th share out of the land measuring 74 Kanals 10 Marlas, but he sold 180/1490 share out of the said land in his favour on 08.12.1992. The remaining share of plot comprised in Khasra No.736 was later on sold by the plaintiff in favour of Ram Kumar son of Ram Rakh, resident of village Dhingsara, vide sale deed dated 13.03.2002 and the said sale deed was also acted upon in the revenue record. As such, now the plaintiff is not entitled to possession over any portion of the land. The trial Court vide order dated 17.11.2008, framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plot No.736 to the extent of 1/5th share being 4 Marlas as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the entries in the revenue record showing the plaintiff owner in possession of the disputed property to the extent of 1/10 share instead of 1/5 RSA No. 3251 of 2010 3 share are illegal, null and void and liable to be corrected as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction against the defendant as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 8. Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs? OPD 9. Relief. In order to prove their rival claims, both the parties led evidence. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1, Prithvi Singh as PW-2 and Mohar Singh as PW-3. On the other hand, defendant himself appeared as DW-1. The trial Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by him was also dismissed by the first Appellate Court. The plaintiff has not disputed having sold the land in two installments. Firstly, he had sold his 180/1490 share in the land measuring 74 Kanals 10 Marlas i.e. 9 Kanals in favour of the defendant vide sale deed Ex.R1, which is depicted in the copies of Jamabandi Ex.P1 and Ex.P3. Even thereafter, vide sale deed, Ex.R2, he had sold his share in the 'gair mumkin' plot comprised in Khasra No. 736. Copies of Jamabandi, Ex.P1 and Ex.P3, reveal that mutation bearing No.2194, Ex.P2, was sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed in favour of the defendant on RSA No. 3251 of 2010 4 29.03.1993. The plaintiff did not challenge the said mutation within time and ultimately, he challenged the same in the year 2007. It further transpires that subsequent to the sale deed dated 29.03.1993, the plaintiff along with his sister Smt. Chawli Devi, sold 6 Marlas of land out of the land comprised in Khasra No.736,in favour of Ram Kumar son of Ram Rakh, resident of village Dhingsara and possession of the same was also delivered to him. While taking the case from another angle, the plaintiff has admitted that he was a co-sharer in the entire land to the extent of 1/5th share, including Khasra No.736. Meaning thereby, he was owner of 4 marlas of land, but he and his sister had sold 3 Marlas each vide sale deed dated 13.02.2002, Ex.R2, to Ram Kumar son of Ram Rakh and by that time he had already sold his 180/1490 share in the plot bearing Khasra No.736. Then in that situation, he does not remain owner over any part of the land comprised in Khasra No.736. All this goes to show that both the Courts below have returned concurrent findings of the fact on sound reasons. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the present case. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) December 05, 2011 JUDGE ajp