R.S.A.No.618 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.618 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 07, 2009 Rameshwar ...Appellant Versus Varinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff No.2 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the defendants' appeal was accepted and the suit dismissed. The plaintiff filed suit for possession of land measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas and 1 bigha 13 biswas as per the jamabandi for the year 1992-93, alleging that as co-sharers of Shamlat Patti Brahmana of Village Punia Khanna, Tehsil and District Patiala, they are entitled to possession of the same. It was alleged that defendant Nos.1 and 2 have no land in Patti Brahmana and that though they alleged to have purchased the land, but no share of Shamlat Patti Brahmana was purchased, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to possession of land of Patti Brahmana. In the written statement, it was pointed out that the defendants have purchased land from Ram Kishan and Krishan Chand, owner in possession of agricultural land in Village Punia Khana, who were khewatdars as well, having share in Shamlat Patti Brahmana. The land R.S.A.No.618 of 2009 2 measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas was purchased by them vide registered sale deed dated 5.6.1972 and possession of the land measuring 13 bighas 16 biswas alongwith share in Shamlat Patti Brahmana measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas was delivered at the time of execution of sale deed. The defendants claimed to be in possession from the said date. It was alleged that the vendor of defendants filed a suit for possession of part of suit land measuring 2 Bighas 11 Biswas at the instance of Joginder Singh- defendant No.3, but the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.2.1991. Since the threats continued at the instance of Joginder Singh, a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed against Ram Kishan, Krishan Chand and said Joginder Singh. The suit was decreed on 13.12.1991. Defendant No.1 was declared to be in possession of land measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas. Another suit for permanent injunction filed by defendant No.1 was decreed on 14.10.1993. The appeal filed by the defendants was also dismissed on 24.11.1995. Thus, it was alleged that the defendants are in possession of the suit land. It was also alleged that the plaintiff Dharam Pal appeared as a witness on behalf of defendant No.3 Joginder Singh in the proceedings of correction of khasra girdawaries and that the present suit has been filed just to harass the defendants at the instance of Joginder Singh-defendant No.3. Learned trial Court decreed the suit relying upon revenue record, but the learned first Appellate Court found that the present suit has been got filed by Joginder Singh and that the plaintiffs are proxy for Joginder Singh. Such finding was returned on the basis of statement of the plaintiff (PW-1) Rameshwar in cross-examination that Joginder Singh-defendant is present in the Court and he has brought him today in R.S.A.No.618 of 2009 3 the Court. Joginder Singh used to come with him on each and every date and it is he, who had got the counsel engaged. At the call of the case, Joginder Singh has had gone to call his counsel. He has admitted that Joginder Singh present in the Court got the suit filed from them and he signed the plaint. It has been further found that Joginder Singh has already lost the litigation with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and, therefore, he got filed the present suit through the present plaintiff. Exs.D-2 & D-3, are the copies of the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1991, whereby suit of the defendant Varinder Singh, against his vendors Ram Kishan, Kishan Chand and Joginder Singh in respect of declaration that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas, was decreed. The sale deed dated 15.6.1972 was found to be valid and binding between the parties. Ex.D-12 is the copy of the judgment dated 14.10.1993 in a suit filed by defendant No.1 against Joginder Singh, Sat Pal and Ralla Singh. Exs.D-4 & D-5 are the judgment and decree in an appeal filed by Joginder Singh, Sat Pal and Ralla Singh. In view of the said fact, it is apparent that the title of defendant No.1 stands proved in view of the judgment and decree Exs.D-2 and D-3 dated 13.12.1991 between the defendant and his vendors. Subsequent, judgments Exs.D-12 and D-4, between defendant No.1 and Joginder Singh, Sat Pal and Ralla Singh recognized his possession. The present suit is a proxy litigation on behalf of Joginder Singh as per the statement of the plaintiff himself. In view of the above, I do not find that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for R.S.A.No.618 of 2009 4 consideration by this Court. Dismissed. August 07, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE