IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.668-69-C of 2008 & RSA No.195 of 2008 Decided on : 01.09.2009 Chattar Pal Singh ... Appellant versus Ravinder Singh & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) CM No.668-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 22 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.195 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that the sale deeds made by his father in favour of the respondents No.1 & 2 were illegal on the ground that their father had sold the same without legal necessity and without consideration and for consequent possession thereof. Both the Courts below have found as a fact that the sale deeds were made by the father to pay off some debts on the basis of RSA No.195 of 2008 -2- the recital in the said sale deeds. Both the Courts have also returned a finding of fact that the consideration in favour of the father of the appellant was duly proved. The following questions have been proposed: i) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below is hit by the principle of res judicata because of the finding of the learned civil court between the same parties regarding the same land vide Ex.P-14. ii)Whether in view of the finding of the civil court by virtue of judgment and Ex.p-14 the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be decreed? iii)Whether the finding of the led. Lower appellate court is confusing and is without application of mind to the facts and evidence produced by the parties? iv)Whether the material issue as to whether the sale deed dated 09.06.1989 for alleged consideration of Rs.56,250/- is without legal necessity, being not framed which has caused material prejudice to the case of the plaintiff. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the learned courts below are liable to be set aside? Questions No.(iii) & (iv) are pure questions of facts which have to be held against the appellant in view of the discussion made herein above. With regard to questions No.(i) & (ii) it would be seen that the said suit was filed by the respondents for injunction that they were owner in possession of RSA No.195 of 2008 -3- the land on the basis of the same sale deeds. In that suit, the plea of the defendants(including the present appellant) was that the land was in possession of the other co-defendants and further in that suit, the said defendants (including the appellant) had admitted that the respondents were co-sharers in the land in dispute and rather had taken the plea that the suit for injunction between co-sharers did not lie. Further in that judgment it was held that the respondents were not able to establish that they were owners in possession of the land. However, the present was a suit for title and the case of the appellant himself was that a decree for possession should be passed in his favour and against the respondents. Thus, the appellant cannot press the judgment Ex.P-14 for his own advantage. Consequently, questions No.(i) & (ii) also have to be held against the appellant. Learned counsel has also raised an argument with regard to the paragraph 11 of the ld. Lower Appellate Court's order whereby the contention of the appellant have been recorded as its findings. In fact a perusal of the subsequent paragraphs 12 & 13 makes it clear that what was recorded in para 11, was the contention of the counsel. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. September 01, 2009 (AJAY TEWARI) sonia JUDGE