RSA No.1786 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1786 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 11.1.2010 Krishna Devi and others ......Appellant(s) Versus Sukhdev Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the respondents. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is defendants' regular second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 4) are joint owners in possession with defendants No.1 to 9 (i.e. proforma respondents No. 5 to 8 & 10 to 14) according to their respective shares in the suit land and mutation Nos.688 and 689 in favour of defendants No.10 to 15 (i.e appellant) are wrong and have no effect over the ownership of the plaintiffs and are required to be set aside with further consequential relief of restraining the defendants to alienate any specific portion of the joint suit land, more than their share and restraining the appellants from alienating the suit property, was decreed with costs. The case of the plaintiff-respondents in brief is that they were joint owners in possession of the suit land with defendants No.1 to 9 being legal heirs of deceased Mehar Singh and Haria who acquired this property through pre-emption decree passed by the then Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur, in Civil Suit No.112 of 1941 decided on 28.4.1942 and mutation No.688 and 689 dated 5.10.1994 in favour of defendants No.10 to 15 (appellants) was illegal null and void being the result of fraud. It was submitted that the RSA No.1786 of 2008(O&M) 2 defendants were threatening the plaintiffs to alienate the specific portion out of the suit property and when they refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff-respondents, the present suit was filed. Upon notice, apart from taking preliminary objections, on merits the ownership of the plaintiffs was denied over the suit property and it was submitted that on the basis of the mutations in their favour, they were owners in possession of the suit land. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit. The only argument raised before the Lower Appellate Court by the appellants was that the suit was not maintainable as without describing the Khasra numbers of the land in dispute, the possession of the plaintiff-respondents was not proved on the file. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed as under:- “I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. A perusal of the judgment shows that the learned lower court has relied upon a large number of documents proved on the file by the plaintiffs and held that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs and after their death the plaintiffs became joint owners of the property under the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiffs argued that if khasra numbers were not given but Khatauni and Khewat numbers have been proved from the revenue record before the trial Court in that case objection raised by the appellants is without any merit in it. Therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned lower court has already given detailed reasons and has rightly RSA No.1786 of 2008(O&M) 3 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs.” It is pertinent to mention that no other point was raised before the Lower Appellate Court by the appellants. Still not satisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-respondents have failed to connect the property with the judgment and decree dated 28.4.1942 and furthermore, the predecessors of the proforma respondents were not a party in those proceedings and therefore, the judgment and decree Ex.P4 is not binding upon the defendants. It is the further grievance of the appellants that the Appellate Court has not given any reasoning while dismissing the appeal and has failed to scrutinize the evidence on record and thus, the following substantial question of law arises in this appeal: “(i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are contrary to the documentary evidence on record and the same judgment and decree are sustainable in the eyes of law? (ii) Whether the appellate court is bound to give the finding on the issues framed by the trial Court and deal with the grounds raised by the appellants and bound to pass the detailed and speaking judgment on the basis of evidence on record and if the appellate court failed to pass the speaking judgment it amounts to non application of judicious mind of the court? (iii) Whether the judgment and decree passed in earlier proceeding where the predecessor in interest of the defendant were not the party the same judgment can be relied by the Court and the Court granted the decree RSA No.1786 of 2008(O&M) 4 on the basis of that very judgment? (iv) Whether once it is proved on record that the appellants are the the bona fide purchaser and the sale deed were duly proved on record then the courts have jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed on the basis of the earlier judgments Ex.P-4 in which the predecessor of the vendor was not party in that proceedings?” I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is without any merit. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court shows that the only grievance raised by the appellants was with regard to the identity of the property and the same was held to be without any merit. Moreover, on a considered appraisal of the impugned judgments, the pleadings on record and the evidence adduced in support thereof, leads to a singular conclusion that the impugned judgments do not suffer from any of the legal infirmities referred to in the questions of law. The concurrent findings returned by the Courts below, therefore, do not require interference. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any errors of fact, misreading of evidence, perversity in the process of reasoning or in the conclusions so recorded. As a result, the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are affirmed. Thus, I find no merit in this case. Dismissed. January 11, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE