R.S.A.No.2351 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.2351 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.5.2011 Gulshan Kumar ......Appellant Versus Nanak Chand .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession basing his claim on sale deed dated 6.10.2000 executed by the defendant in his favour. Defendant was proceeded ex parte. Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2006, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 12.10.2010. Hence, the present appeal R.S.A.No.2351 of 2011 (O&M) 2 by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had sought possession of the suit property on the basis of sale deed dated 6.10.2000 executed by the defendant in his favour. The said sale deed was duly proved on record by the plaintiff by examining the attesting witnesses. Defendant-appellant is the son-in-law of the plaintiff. The plea taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, that the sale deed had been executed by the appellant in favour of his father-in-law as security for his wife appears to be an afterthought. Moreover, the appellant was proceeded ex parte before the trial Court. The un- rebutted evidence led by the plaintiff qua execution of the sale deed in his favour by the appellant-defendant was liable to be believed. Since the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property on the basis of sale deed executed by the defendant in his favour, the suit filed by the plaintiff for possession was liable to be decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 25, 2011 anita