RSA No. 3209 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 3209 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.01.2011. Krishan Chand .......Appellant Vs. Bhushan Lal ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was the owner in possession of land measuring 24 Kanals 12 Marlas purchased by him vide sale deed dated 02.02.1993. The mutation No. 4314 was null and void and had no effect on the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further sought the relief of permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, had averred that 27 Kanals 12 Marlas of joint property of the parties was sold and as per oral family settlement, the suit property was to be purchased in equal shares by the plaintiff's father and the RSA No. 3209 of 2010 (O&M) -2- defendant. However, the father of plaintiff fraudulently purchased the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by taking undue advantage of the faith of defendant in his elder brother. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the suit is based on the false facts and the defendant is entitled for special cost of Rs. 10,000/-? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2008, trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali vide judgment and decree dated 16.3.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the appellant was that in fact the suit property was liable to be purchased in the name of the appellant and his elder brother Bachan Lal. However, Bachan Lal fraudulently purchased the suit property in the name of his son Bhushan Lal-plaintiff. The appellant, however, failed to establish RSA No. 3209 of 2010 (O&M) -3- his case that some joint property belonging to him and his brother Bachan Lal had been sold before the execution of the sale deed in question. Thus, the appellant had failed to establish that since some joint property of the parties had been sold and consequently the sale deed was to be executed in favour of his brother Bachan Lal, in terms of the family settlement. Both the courts below after appreciating the evidence on record had given findings of the fact that the plaintiff had purchased the land in question vide sale deed dated 02.02.1993. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 31, 2011 Gurpreet