RSA No.3728 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3728 of 2009 Date of decision: 02.05.2011 Paras Ram ......Appellant Versus Manju Anand and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sunil Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Boparai,Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Manju Anand had filed a suit for possession on the basis of ownership qua the suit property. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she has purchased the suit property from defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 31.5.1982 and possession of the suit property was delivered to her by defendant No.2. Mutation No. 3356 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on 4.6.1982. However, defendant No.1 had taken forcible possession of the suit property. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that he had purchased the suit property from Charanjit Singh vide sale deed RSA No.3728 of 2009 (O&M) 2 dated 12.2.1997. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 on 22.5.1997 on the basis of the sale deed. Charanjit had purchased the suit property from Sat Pal vide sale deed dated 12.3.1993. Defendant No.1 was bona fide purchaser for consideration. Defendant No.2, in his written statement, admitted the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession on the basis of ownership and prior possession of the suit property described on the head note of the plaint ?OPP 2.Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 3.Whether the suit is non maintainable in the present form?OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred by the limitation. If so, its effect?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff has no proper cause of action to file the court fee. If so, its effect?OPD 6.Whether no cause of action raised to plaintiff to file the present suit?OPD 7.Whether the suit is false and frivolous to the knowledge of the plaintiff?OPD 8.Whether defendant is entitled to special costs of Rs.10,000/- as alleged?OPD 9. Whether defendant No.1 is a bona fide purchaser?OPD RSA No.3728 of 2009 (O&M) 3 10.Whether the possession of defendant No.1 through his predecessors in interest is adverse to that of plaintiff?OPD 11. Whether the defendant No.1 sold the property to Charanjit Singh, for valuable consideration and without the notice of the claim of the plaintiff. If so, its effect?OPD 12.Relief.” The Civil Judge, Junior Division decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2006. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by defendant No.1, by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the suit property was initially owned by defendant No.2-Sat Pal Batta. Plaintiff had purchased the property in dispute from defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 31.5.1982. The execution of the sale deed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff has been admitted by the vendor-defendant No.2. Mutation was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on 4.6.1982, Exhibit P3 on the basis of the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in her favour. Since defendant No.2 had already sold the suit property to the plaintiff in the year 1982, he would not have sold the suit property in the year 1993 to Charanjit Singh as he has no title or interest in the suit property. Charanjit Singh, thus, could not sell the suit property further as he had not become the owner of the suit property. Although it is a hard case where defendant No.1-appellant has purchased the suit property for consideration after going through the RSA No.3728 of 2009 (O&M) 4 revenue record but the fact remains that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property in view of the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in her favour. Hence, no relief can be granted to the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE May 02, 2011 arya