IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.701 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.2.2011 Pala Ram … Appellant Versus Premi Devi and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Plaintiff –Chanan Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that defendant was his son and was employed as a Head-constable with Haryana Police. Plaintiff had constructed a residential house consisting of six rooms. There was an open courtyard in front of the rooms. The plaintiff had three other sons namely Naib Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Ajaib Singh. Plaintiff had allotted one room to each of his said three sons and he alongwith his wife was residing in one room. Behaviour of defendant towards him and his family members was not cordial. Hence, suit for permanent injunction was filed. Defendant in his written statement took up the plea that he was owner of the suit property. In fact, defendant was entitled to half share in the Bara in question on the basis of settlement arrived at between him and plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Relief.” RSA No.701 of 2010 (O&M) Vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2008, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendant from demolishing the rooms by raising construction or blocking the passage or ousting the plaintiff from the suit property in any manner. Appeal preferred by the defendant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 30.9.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Suit was filed by plaintiff-Chanan Singh. However, he died during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record. The case of the plaintiff was that he was owner of the suit property as he had inherited the same from his forefathers. The case of the defendant on the other hand was that he had purchased the suit property from Ram Chander and in this regard defendant-appellant had placed reliance on Receipt Exhibit DW1/B. The said receipt was rightly discarded by the courts below as it was not a registered one. Sale of the property valuing more than Rs.100/- cannot be effected without a registered document. Hence, courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Defendant on the other hand had failed to establish that he was the owner of the suit property No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 14.02.2011 sd 2