RSA.No.3586 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA.No.3586 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.10.2011 Sinder Kaur ....Appellant Versus Nirmal Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J Defendant No.1-appellant has filed the present appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barnala dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a Civil Suit No.181 of 25.5.2005 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant and present respondent no.2 from interfering in his peaceful possession or illegally taking possession of RSA.No.3586 of 2011 #2# House No.B-13/1471 situated within the Municipal Limit of Barnala. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2009. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2009, an appeal No.22 of 20.5.2009 was filed and the same was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009 thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff-respondent over the suit property except in due course of law, hence the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned First Appellate Court has legally erred while reversing the finding of learned trial Court and ignoring the fact that one Buta Singh is the original owner of the house in dispute and in the year 2003 he has gone abroad and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has illegally taken forcible possession of the house and the suit was filed by Nirmal Singh-plaintiff in connivance with Ujagar Singh S/o Chanan Singh in order to grab the property in dispute. It is further argued that an FIR No.212 under Section 447 IPC was also registered against the plaintiff-respondent for trespassing into the said house and as such the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of paragraph 10 of judgment dated 5.5.2009 RSA.No.3586 of 2011 #3# passed by the learned trial Court itself clearly reveals that counsel for the plaintiff has specifically argued that the defendants have admitted in their written statement that the plaintiff is in possession of the house in dispute but despite that the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit by observing that the plaintiff has failed to produce the sale certificate issued in his favour. On the other hand, in paragraph 11 of the said judgment, the learned trial Court has recorded a finding that “it has also been proved the sale certificate issued in favour of Ranjit Singh was cancelled” then there was no occasion for the learned trial Court to record a finding in paragraph 10 that the plaintiff has failed to produce the Sale Certificate issued in his favour and as such this finding is wrong. As a matter of fact, the Sale Certificate was issued in favour of one Ranjit Singh and from Ranjit Singh, the present plaintiff- respondent No.1 has purchased the house in dispute vide agreement dated 10.6.2004 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/- and the execution of the sale deed was fixed on 1.6.2005 and the entire sale consideration was received on 15.12.2004 and 23.3.2005 and a writing in token thereof was also recorded on the back side of the agreement. It has come on record that Ranjit Singh had also executed a power of attorney dated 29.3.2005 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and the possession of the house in dispute was handed over and he is continuing in possession of the house in dispute till date with his family. No doubt, the sale certificate issued in favour of said Ranjit RSA.No.3586 of 2011 #4# Singh was subsequently set aside in the proceedings under the provisions of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act but the fact remains that Ranjit Singh had purchased the suit property in an auction and the possession was delivered to the auction purchaser and as such Ranjit Singh had acquired the title of the suit property in a lawful manner as owner in possession on the basis of Sale Certificate issued in his favour. Thus in view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the possession of the house in dispute by Ranjit Singh and then in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is absolutely in accordance with law and cannot be termed as unauthorized or illegal. Even before this Court, the defendant-appellant is not able to dispute the possession of plaintiff-respondent No.1. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant is based on pure facts, which has rightly been appreciated by the learned first Appellate Court and no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, which is the sine qua non for exercising the jurisdiction by this Court under the provisions of Section 100 CPC. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.7.2009 clearly reveals that the appeal of the plaintiff- respondent No.1 was accepted and the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed for restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession over the suit property except in due course of law and as such the defendant No.1-appellant is free to take his RSA.No.3586 of 2011 #5# legal remedy in accordance with law but nothing expressed herein shall be construed to be an expression in favour of the defendant-appellant. Keeping in view of the above discussion, I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgments passed by both the courts below warranting interference. Dismissed. October 19, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE