Regular Second Appeal No. 4367 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4367 of 2008 Date of decision : January 27, 2010 Balbir Singh ....Appellant versus Parminder Kumar and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by plaintiff no. 1 who alongwith plaintiff no. 2 i.e. proforma respondent no. 4 has remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. The plaintiffs alleged that defendant no. 3 agreed to sell the disputed plot to the plaintiffs vide agreement to sell dated 17.4.1996 and delivered possession thereof to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have constructed two shops therein. However, defendant no. 3 had executed sale deed dated 24.1.1997 in favour of defendant no. 1 who is son of defendant no. 2. In view of said sale deed, defendants were trying to take possession of the suit property forcibly. Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit property in view of agreement Regular Second Appeal No. 4367 of 2008 2 to sell dated 17.4.1996 and that sale deed dated 24.1.1997 executed by defendant no. 3 in favour of defendant no. 1 regarding the disputed plot is result of fraud and collusion and has no affect on the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property and from alienating the same. Defendant no. 3 was proceeded exparte whereas defendant nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit and interalia, pleaded that defendant no. 1 purchased the disputed plot from defendant no. 3 vide registered sale deed dated 24.1.1997 and defendant no. 1 constructed shops on the plot in January and February, 2005 and obtained electricity connection and accordingly defendant no. 1 is owner in possession of the suit property. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi vide judgment and decree dated 11.8.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 3.6.2008. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff no. 1 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to explain as to how the plaintiffs could become owners of the suit plot merely on the basis of agreement to sell in the absence of registered sale deed. The impugned agreement to sell was allegedly entered into for consideration of Rs 8000/-. Consequently, the agreement in the absence of registered sale deed could not confer title on the plaintiffs over the suit property. Regular Second Appeal No. 4367 of 2008 3 The plaintiffs are also not proved to be in possession of the suit property. Electricity connection in the suit property stands installed in the name of defendant no. 1 who is also paying electricity bills thereof. The plaintiffs' evidence regarding construction of shops by them was also found to be contradictory. There is concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that plaintiffs are not proved to be in possession of the suit property. The said finding based on appreciation of evidence is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed being bereft of any merit. ( L.N. Mittal ) January 27, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'