R.S.A.No. 2148 of 2007 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2148 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 09, 2009 Jatinder Kumar and others ---Appellants versus Sarabjit Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh,Advocate, for the appellant Mr.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2 *** SABINA J. Plaintiffs –Sarbjit Singh Bassi and Rashvir Kaur had filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction. Civil Judge (Junior Division),Phillaur vide judgment and decree dated 17.11.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, defendants No. 1 (b), (c) and ( C ) had preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 5.3.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the said defendants. R.S.A.No. 2148 of 2007 (O&M) {2} The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment read as under:- “ The brief facts of the case are that it is the plaintiffs Sarbjit Singh and his wife Rashvir Kaur who are the owners of the suit land which they purchased from Kishan Lal and Jiwan Dass vide registered sale deed dated 21.4.1999 for a sum of Rs. 83,000/-. Previously Rai Kaur widow of Kishan Singh was the owner in possession of the same and she sold the same to Kishan Lal and his brother vide sale deed dated 20.10.1972 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- . Earlier it is the plaintiffs who were in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs earlier also filed a suit against the defendants and others and the Civil Court directed the parties to maintain status quo but the defendants with the help of the police took forcible possession of the house in October, 2000 illegally and at the back of the plaintiffs when they had gone abroad. The plaintiffs requested the defendants many times to admit their claim over the suit property and to hand over the possession of the same to them but they refused and hence this suit. 3. The defendant appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have concealed material facts. The real fact is that it is the defendant who is the owner in possession of the suit property in which he is running a shop. The defendant also filed a suit for permanent injunction against Jiwan Dass on 9.12.1998 and the same was decreed on 16.3.1999. The plaintiff also filed a civil R.S.A.No. 2148 of 2007 (O&M) {3} suit for permanent injunction against the defendant and others and in that suit also the defendant had pleaded that it is he who is in possession of the suit property and that the sale deed dated 21.4.1999 in favour of the plaintiffs is illegal and void and is the result of fraud and misrepresentation and that it is he who is owner of the suit property. Therefore, Jiwan Dass and Kishan Lal had no right to alienate the suit property to the plaintiffs. The boundaries of the suit property do not tally with the property mentioned in the sale deed. After denying the other averments it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- “(1)Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP (2)Whether the possession as prayed for ? OPP (3)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (4)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction through their attorney basing their claim on sale deed dated 21.4.1999. Plaintiffs examined the scribe of the sale deed as PW-1 and Santosh Kumar-PW-2, Registration Clerk who deposed to the effect that the sale deed, in question, was duly registered by their office. Admittedly, the suit property was initially owned by Rai Kaur who sold the same to Chela Ram vide sale deed Ex. PW 1/A. The suit property was sold by the R.S.A.No. 2148 of 2007 (O&M) {4} sons of Chela Ram to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also proved on record the sale deed Ex. PW 3/A dated 20.10.1972 vide which Rai Kaur had sold the suit property to Chela Ram. Defendants, on the other hand, had failed to establish any sale deed or document of title in their favour qua the suit land. In these circumstances, courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record have rightly held that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land on the basis of sale deed dated 21.4.1999. Issue No. 3 was framed as to whether the suit was not maintainable, but the said issue was not pressed before the trial court and hence, the same cannot be agitated in this appeal by the appellants. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 09, 2009 PARAMJIT