RSA No. 305 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 305 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: October 26, 2010 Ashok Kumar and others ...Appellants Versus Sucha Singh ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellants. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. The appellants/defendants have preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide which he dismissed their appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ajnala, decreeing suit of the respondent/plaintiff for possession of the residential house constructed on the land measuring 7 marlas bearing Khasra No. 310/1, situated in the street/pathway leading from Hospital Road, Ajnala, to the Government Girls School, Ajnala, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint and directing them to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the plaintiff within two months. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that previously Sita Ram was the owner of the house in dispute, who sold the same to him vide sale deed dated 23.12.1998 for a consideration of ` 80,000/- and at that time this RSA No. 305 of 2010 2 house consisted of two rooms. Ashok Kumar-defendant No. 1 is the son and Shashi Bala-defendant No.2 is the daughter-in-law of that Sita Ram. Defendant No.1 was having joint business with his daughter, which was being run at Ajnala and on that account there were very cordial relations between him and Sita Ram. On account of those cordial relations, Sita Ram requested him to allow him to retain the possession of the house for sometime and promised to vacate the same as and when he desired. Further request was made to him to raise more construction and, as such, he constructed two rooms, two kitchens, two stores, one bath room and one toilet in this property. Sita Ram died on 2.2.2001, leaving behind the defendants as his legal heirs, who are coming in possession of the house in dispute. He requested them to vacate the same and hand over the vacant possession but they refused to do so. Therefore, he filed the suit for possession. The suit was contested by the defendants, who filed joint written statement. They admitted that the house was earlier owned by Sita Ram and that they are his legal heirs. However, they denied the other contentions of the plaintiff and pleaded that the plaintiff is employed in the Punjab State Electricity Board and with the help of the witnesses forged the sale deed. They are coming in possession of the house as owners and, as such, no decree for possession can be passed in favour of the plaintiff. They also took up preliminary objections that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that proper court fee has not been affixed. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit and also for staying the same under Section 10 of the CPC. In the replication to the written statement, the plaintiff denied RSA No. 305 of 2010 3 the contentions raised therein and reiterated all the averments made in the plaint. On the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the trial court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff purchased the house in dispute from Sita Ram vide sale deed dated 23.12.1998 ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff made further construction in the suit property after its purchase ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property ? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of CPC ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 7. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit ? OPD 9. Relief.” To succeed in the suit, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-3, Raman Kumar (PW-1), Mohinder Singh (PW-2) and Karandeep Singh (PW- 4). On the other hand, defendant No.1 stepped in the witness box as DW-1. After going through the evidence so produced on the record and hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the trial court decided all the RSA No. 305 of 2010 4 issues, except Issue No.2, in favour of the plaintiff and resultantly, decreed his suit. As already said above, the first appeal preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree of the trial court was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants/defendants. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants that once finding on issue No. 2 was recorded against the plaintiff, the suit for possession of the whole house could not have been decreed in his favour. According to the plaintiff, only two rooms were in existence in the house in dispute when the sale deed was executed in his favour and as such, the decree for possession in respect of the other construction raised therein could not have been granted. According to him, the substantial question of law which arises in the present appeal is: Whether the decree could have been passed in respect of the whole of the house in dispute ? Concurrent findings were recorded by both the courts below against the defendants. Concurrent findings were recorded in favour of the plaintiff that the sale deed dated 23.12.1998 was duly executed in his favour by Sita Ram vide which the house in dispute was sold in his favour. No doubt, a finding was recorded by the trial court, while deciding issue No.2, that no further construction was raised by the plaintiff in this property, as pleaded by him in his plaint. It was not the case of the defendants that they should be paid compensation for the construction which was raised in this property after the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the property so mentioned in the sale deed, which was to include any additions made therein after execution of the sale deed. It cannot be said that any substantial question of law arises in the present RSA No. 305 of 2010 5 appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. October 26, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE