IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2332 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011. Nathi Ram. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Molu and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 20.03.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 22.02.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Yamuna Nagar vide which suit of present appellant- plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2332 of 2011 Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for declaration that he is co-owner in possession of the land in dispute as the same was inherited by him from his father, Lal Singh and further for declaration that mutation sanctioned in favour of respondents-defendants on the basis of sale by his father, Lal Singh regarding 41 Kanals 11 Marlas, is null and void and not binding upon his rights with further decree for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from alienating the land in dispute in any manner. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants by taking the plea that Lal Singh sold his share to respondents-defendants No.1 to 4 for a consideration of `2,200/- and mutation was also entered and sanctioned on 29.06.1955 and since then they have been continuing in possession of land in dispute as owners. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Yamuna Nagar. Both the courts came to the conclusion that it was a valid transaction of sale and mutation was duly sanctioned on 29.06.1955 and since then respondents- defendants No.1 to 4 have been continuing in possession as owners over the land in dispute. It may be mentioned here that the sale transaction which is impugned in the present lis is dated 09.01.1955. Sale was made by none-else but father of present appellant-plaintiff through whom he is claiming right in the property in dispute after the mutation was sanctioned in the year 1955. Though he was alive till 22.01.1988 and however, he did not challenge the sale in favour of respondents-defendants. Sale was effected even earlier to the birth of present appellant-plaintiff. Hence, it cannot be said that the said 2 RSA No.2332 of 2011 sale transaction is in any way illegal or void and that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 5, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3