R. S. A No. 4430 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R. S. A No. 4430 of 2004 (O&M) Date of decision : 15.9.2008 Santokh Singh and another ..... Appellants vs Kewal Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. K. S. Dadwal, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellants/defendants are in appeal before this court against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below whereby suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land measuring 13 marlas out of land measuring 2 kanals 17 marlas bearing khewat no. 84, khatauni no. 122, khasra no. 244, situated in Village Dhakowal, Hadbast No. 263, was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs owned certain piece of land forming part of khasra no. 244 which was allotted to them during consolidation proceedings. As the land allotted to them was not in conformity with their claim, an application under Section 42 of the East Punjab Consolidation Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Act') was filed by them on 13.1.1986. However, the allotted land in khasra no. 244, measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas was sold by them to the appellants/defendants vide registered sale-deed dated 28.2.1986. The proceedings initiated under Section 42 of the Act were finally decided by the competent authority opining that the respondents/plaintiffs were, in fact, entitled to 2 kanals 17 marlas of land as against 2 kanals 4 marlas in the same khasra number. The suit was filed for the reasons that it was only 2 kanals 4 marlas of land which was sold to the appellants/defendants out of khasra no. 244 whereas after the correction, the respondents/plaintiffs had become entitled to 2 kanals 17 marlas of land and the balance thereof was in their ownership and possession. The claim set up by the respondents/ plaintiffs was accepted by both the courts below. R. S. A No. 4430 of 2004 2 Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the courts below have gone wrong in not appreciating the contentions raised by the appellants where it was submitted that the application under Section 42 of the Act was made by the respondents/plaintiffs with ulterior motive after the land forming part of khasra no. 244 had already been sold by them to the appellants. He further submitted that it was the entire land in khasra no. 244 which had been sold to the appellants. Even after the corrections by the authorities, the dimensions of the land remained the same and it was only the area thereof, which was changed. Keeping these facts in view the appellants were entitled to retain the ownership of the entire land forming khasra no. 244 as it was only an error which was there in the description mentioned in the sale-deed. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that the application under Section 42 of the Act was moved by the respondents after the sale of the land to the appellants is factually incorrect. The application was, in fact, filed on 13.1.1986 whereas the land was sold to the appellants on 28.2.1986, the date on which the respondents were having ownership of only 2 kanals 4 marlas, in the revenue records. He further submitted that sale-deed clearly contained description of the property bearing khasra no. 244 with measurement as 2 kanals 4 marlas. He further referred to the statement made by appellant Santokh Singh while appearing as DW5. In his cross-examination, he has clearly admitted that vide Ex. D-3, the sale-deed of the disputed land, he purchased 2 kanals 4 marlas of land. Keeping these facts in view the submission is that the learned courts below have rightly opined that the appellants do not get any title or interest over the property which is over and above 2 kanals 4 marlas, as was sold to them. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the courts below are plaint and simple finding of fact recorded on correct appreciation of material on record. The fact that the application under Section 42 of the Act was made by the respondents/plaintiffs on 13.1.1986 whereas the land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas was sold to the appellants on 28.2.1986 could not be disputed. It is evident from Ex. D-3 that while recording khasra number measurement of the land is also mentioned therein as 2 kanals 4 marlas. Meaning thereby that with open eyes both the parties to the R. S. A No. 4430 of 2004 3 transaction had dealt with the land measuring 2 kanals 4 marlas. Even as per the revenue record on the date of sale, the respondents did not have more than the land what was sold by them. Even appellant Santokh Singh in his cross-examination has admitted the fact that he had purchased 2 kanals 4 marlas of land only as described in the jamabandi for the year 1985-86. Keeping in view the above documentary evidence and further the admission of the appellants themselves, no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 15.9.2008 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge