R.S.A. No. 3386 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3386 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.4.2009 Nishan Singh .......... Appellant Versus Om Parkash ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.3.2008, passed by the learned Courts below, vide which suit filed by the plaintiff / appellant, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff / appellant, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit, on the pleading that he was owner in possession of the agricultural land measuring 35 Kanals 16 Marlas comprised in Khewat No. 431, situated within the revenue estate of Jind, where he had sown 'Jawar' crop. Whereas the defendant / respondent has no concern with the suit land and, therefore, the injunction was sought from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. The suit was contested, wherein a specific plea was taken, that R.S.A. No. 3386 of 2008 2 suit as claimed was not maintainable in the present form, and that the plaintiff has not come to the Court, with clean hands. On merits, it was claimed that the property was sold by the father of the plaintiff by way of different sale deeds in favour of different persons and after death of his father number of sale deeds were executed in favour of different persons by his wife Smt. Bir Kaur. The plaintiff / appellant has been non-suited by recording findings, which reads as under :- “18. Co-joint reading of these sale deeds would reveal that the plots no. 6 and 7 in Bir Market were purchased by Smt. Mayawanti and Smt. Jasoda Bai vide sale deeds dated 12.2.1971. These sale deeds are Ex. D3 and Ex.D4. They ha d further sold these plots to one Ram Kumar vide sale deed Ex. D7. Said Ram Kumar had sold these plots to Smt. Elaichi Devi and Ramesh Kumar vide sale deeds (Ex. D9/A and Ex. D10) on 8.10.1990. Both Smt. Elaichi Devi and Ramesh Kumar are shown to have sold these plots measuring 64 sq. yards to the defendants on 14.5.2004 (Ex.D11). Sale deeds (copies of which are Ex.D1 to Ex.D5) have been proved by Shri K.K. Mittal, Advocate (DW2) whose father Lala Umrav Singh was deed writer of these sale deeds. Deed writer Vikram Goyal (DW3) has proved sale deeds certified copies of which are Ex.D6 and Ex.D7. Deed writer Ramesh Kumar (DW4) has proved sale deeds copies of which are Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. Similarly, deed writer Parmod Kumar (DW5) has proved sale deeds copies of which are Ex.D9/A, Ex.D10 and Ex.D11. Ramesh Kumar (DW6) is one of the vendors of plots shown in sale deeds Ex.D9/A and Ex.D10. They have sold the same vide sale deed R.S.A. No. 3386 of 2008 3 (Ex.D11). Other co vendor with Ramesh Kumar (DW6) was Smt. Ilaichi Devi. Defendant Om Parkash is vendee of sale deed Ex.D11. 19. In his pointed cross examination Rameh Kumar (DW6) has also traced the title of other vendors Smt. Yasoda Bai and Ram Kumar. In pointed cross examination of Om Parkash (DW7) and Ramesh Kumar (DW6) nothing impeaching their credit has surfaced. From the discussion and appraisal of evidence as above, notwithstanding omission of mention of khasra number and other details of the land in sale deed (Ex.D11) it is sufficiently established that the land shown in sale dee (Ex.D11) is located in khasra no. 22/1 of Rectangle no. 130. Findings of learned lower court on issues no. 1 to 3 against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant having correctly been arrived at, neither suffer from any factual nor legal error. Findings on these issues are affirmed.” The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration : 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of documentary and oral evidence, thus, perverse ? In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Courts below have misread the evidence in not recording a finding that the sale deed set up by the defendant / respondent to claim ownership was prima facie forged document, as the name of the vendor was shown to be Mir Singh instead of Bir Singh and, therefore, the sale deed could not give any title to the R.S.A. No. 3386 of 2008 4 defendant / respondent, as claimed. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the sale deed set up by the defendant / respondent, was totally vague as it did not give Killa number and other particulars of the land to connect the disputed land with the land of the plaintiff / respondent. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below, on the face of it, are perverse, and outcome of taking into consideration the inadmissible evidence, not permissible in law. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that though defendant claimed to have purchased the land, by way of sale deed, no mutation was got sanctioned in his favour and, thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant, deserved to be decreed. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned lower appellate Court has considered all the questions raised, by recording a finding on appreciation of evidence, as reproduced above. Merely because the name of the father of the appellant was shown as Mir Singh, due to typographical error, could not entitle him to seek injunction against the person who was in possession of the property, having purchased it from the vendees of the father of the plaintiff and in pursuance thereto was put in possession. In the facts and circumstances of the case, and possession proved on the suit land, the suit for injunction, as claimed, was rightly rejected by the learned Courts below. As regards the question of sanctioning of mutation, in favour of R.S.A. No. 3386 of 2008 5 the defendant/ respondent, is concerned, the mutation confers no title. Mere non-sanctioning of mutation could not dis-entitle the owner of the property, to hold the same. Consequently, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. 23.4.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE