IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4152 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 09.12. 2008 Ajit and others ...... Appellants Versus Rajinder and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.R.S.Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Atul Gaur, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the respondents. **** Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for injunction on the ground of being owners in possession since the time of their ancestors. The property in dispute is a plot measuring 88 x 38 feet situated within the abadi of the village. It was the case of the appellants that they had purchased the property vide a document of 1964, however, being unregistered, the same was rightly ignored by the Courts below. The Courts have also found that the said document would not advance the case of the appellants even for a collateral purpose since that document did not recite that the possession of the property had been handed over to the RSA No. 4152 of 2005 -2- appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decree Ex.D-9 which was allegedly passed in a suit between the appellants and one Sultan Singh who is a collateral of the respondents. The Courts have ignored this decree for the reason that the respondents were never a party thereto. Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon Ex.D-7 which was a compromise allegedly arrived at between the parties on 16.11.2003 during the visit of the local commissioner. The Courts have repelled this compromise on the ground that the case was fixed before the Court on the very next day i.e. 17.11.2003 and on that day a statement was made to the effect that parties were negotiating for a compromise. Thus, the Courts have found that the writing of 16.11.2003 could not be considered to be a complete compromise between the parties. In my opinion no infirmity can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 09, 2008 sunita