Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2645 of 2004 Date of decision: 11.09.2009 Harbhajan Singh s/o Narinjan Singh, r/o Main Bazar, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. ..... Appellant. Versus 1. Harbhajan Kaur wd/o S. Surain Singh, 2. Rattan Singh, 3. Hardial Singh, 4. Balkar Singh sons of S. Surain Singh, 5. Paramjit Kaur, 6. Inderjit Kaur and 7. Ranjit Kaur ds/o S. Surain Singh, all rs/o Main Bazar, Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. ..... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.S. Rekhi, Advocate for the respondents. Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2002, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baba Bakala, vide which it decreed the suit of the plaintiff and the Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -2- judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which it dismissed the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case, are that the plaintiff claimed himself to be the owner/landlord of the shop, in dispute, as fully detailed and described in the plaint. It was stated that he had rented out the same, to the defendant 15/16 years, prior to the institution of the suit, at a monthly rental of Rs.60/-. It was further stated that on 10.09.1996, the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs.225/-, per month, and an agreement to that effect was also executed. It was further stated that after paying the rent upto December, 1996, the defendant stopped making the payment thereof. It was further stated that when the defendant was asked to pay the arrears of rent, he misbehaved and maltreated the plaintiff and also threatened him with liquidation. It was further stated that the plaintiff terminated the tenancy of the defendant, by serving a notice, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and asked him, to deliver the possession of the property, in dispute, as also to pay the arrears of rent, but to no avail. On his final refusal, a suit for possession and recovery of the amount of arrears, was filed. Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -3- 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing written statement, wherein, it was averred that the plaintiff had no locus standi, to file the suit; and that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The ownership of the plaintiff, in respect of the property, in dispute, was denied. It was also denied that the defendant took the shop, in dispute, on rent, from the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was stated that the agreement/compromise dated 10.09.1996 was a forged and fabricated document. It was further stated that the shop, in dispute, was a part and parcel of khasra No.78 owned by Abadi Deh. The defendant, being a member of proprietary body of the village, was a co- sharer therein. Naranjan Singh, father of the defendant, purchased two marlas and five Sarsais of land, out of khasra no.78 from one Daan Singh son of Surain Singh, vide registered sale deed dated 06.02.1998 and entered into possession thereof. It was further stated that after the death of Naranjan Singh on 29.05.1994, the defendant came into possession of the shop, in dispute, as a co-sharer. The remaining averments, contained in the plaint were denied, being wrong. Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -4- 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were framed by the trial Court :- “1- Whether the defendant tenant under the plaintiff ? OPP 2- If issue no.1 is proved, whether defendant is liable to be ejected as prayed for by the plaintiff ?OPP 3- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of arrears of rent as prayed for ?OPP 4- Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5- Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?OPD 6- Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 7- Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD 8- Relief.” Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -5- 5. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. The trial Court, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, decreed the suit, as stated above. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred by the appellant/defendant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide its judgment and decree dated 19.04.2004. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed, by the appellant/defendant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the evidence, carefully. 9. The following substantial questions of law, arise, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- “1.Whether the Courts below, recorded perverse findings on account of mis-reading and mis- appreciation of evidence that defendant no.1 was not the owner in possession of the property, in dispute, on the basis of sale deed Ex.D-1.? 2. Whether the Courts below recorded perverse finding that the plaintiff was the owner in possession, of the property, in dispute, and let out the same to the defendant? Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -6- 3. Whether the Courts below recorded perverse findings that the compromise/agreement(Ex.P-2), dated 10.09.1996 was a legal and valid document? 10. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Courts below recorded perverse findings that Ex.D-1, sale deed, in favour of the father of the appellant was not connected with the property, in dispute, and, as such, he was not the owner in possession, thereof. He further submitted that even the Courts below were wrong in relying upon the document,(Ex.P-2), dated 10.09.1996, regarding the creation of tenancy. He further submitted that the said document is forged and fabricated. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the agreement,(Ex.P-2) dated 10.09.1996, is a legal and valid document. He further submitted that the sale deed, (Ex.D-1) was not connected with the property, in dispute, nor the father of the defendant, ever came into possession of the same. He further submitted that the Courts below were right, in holding, that the defendant was a tenant in the property, in dispute, under the land- Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -7- lordship of the father of the respondents and his tenancy was rightly terminated. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion,the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -8- Ex.P-2 is the agreement, vide which the tenancy was created in favour of the defendant/appellant. Bhag Singh, (PW-2), Balkar Singh, (PW-3) and S. Surain Singh , plaintiff, (PW-4) proved the execution of the document, (Ex.P-2). According to this document, Surain Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, rented out the shop, in dispute, to Harbhajan Singh, defendant, at a monthly rental of Rs.225/-. Vide this document, the defendant admitted him to be the owner/landlord of the property, in dispute. Not only this, the statement, certified copy whereof, is Ex.P-5, which was made by the defendant, in the earlier suit, titled as Nazir Singh and others Vs. Mohinder Singh on 25.11.1997, prior to the present controversy, between the parties, he admitted that he had been paying rent at the rate of Rs.225/- per month, to Surain Singh, for the last 2-1/2 years. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the parties was duly proved. No doubt, the signatures on this document, were denied by Harbhajan Singh, defendant, yet his bald statement, in the face of the cogent and convincing evidence, produced by the plaintiff, was hardly of any consequence. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding that the defendant was a tenant, in the shop, in dispute, under the ownership/landlordship of Surain Singh, at Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -9- a monthly rental of Rs.225/-. The Courts below were also right in holding, that his tenancy was rightly terminated. 13. No doubt, the defendant/appellant claimed that his father purchased the property, in dispute,vide sale deed (Ex.D-1) and after his death, he became the owner in possession thereof. The Courts below were right in holding that the sale deed, (EX.D-1), was not connected with the property, in dispute, as the boundaries depicted therein were completely different from the boundaries of the property, in dispute, as also the khasra number was not written therein. Even no specific portion of the land which was sold, vide this sale deed, by Daan Singh, was mentioned therein. Daan Singh only sold a share out of a big chunk of land, and, as such, was not competent to deliver possession of any specific portion of khasra number 78. The Courts below were, thus, right in holding that the defendant/appellant, failed to prove that he was the owner in possession of the land, in dispute, on the basis of sale deed, (Ex.D-1). 14. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, Regular Second Appeal No. 2645 of 2004 -10- warranting the interference of this Court. The substantial questions of law, depicted above, are answered against the appellant. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) 11.09.2009, Judge dinesh