1 83 4 4 aal RegularSeconAppeal Noe 1412 of 2008 lOSMIe IN THEHIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNOAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 March j r 2011 1 1 ReoularSecond Appeal No 1412 of 2008 lOSMI 0 Banarsi Dass Chadha Appellant 0 I VERSUS t5 I Mohinder Singh Mahli and others Respondents Z CORAM HONBLE MROUSTICE MOHINDER PALe t 1 WhetherReporters of Local papers may be allowed to see Z the judgment7 2e To be referred to the Reportersor not7 Whether the should be reportedin the Digest7 m 3a mP3 Z Present Mr Amit Jain Advocate for the appellant None for the respondents MOHINDER PAL Je Banarsi Dass Chadha olaintifappellantlIS In second appeal against the judgmentsand decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction the Nos 1 to 3 from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff and Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 84 r 44 ReqularSecond Appeal Noe 1412 of 2008 C0SMI proforma Nos 4 to 6 over the suit Iand detailed and described in the heading of the plaint was as dismissed None chose to appear on behalf of defendant 1 Nos 1 and 2 when the matter was taken up for Counselfor defendantsrespondentsNos 1 and 2 had 0 0 earlier been appeanng ill the case but stoppedappearing after I 82010 when the appeal was taken up for hearing on C5 I 2972010 2292010 and 102011 Insofar as defendar No3 he Was served by way of publication in Z Dainik Tribune However none appearedon his behaIf a nd 2 accordingly No3 was proceededagainst I partevide order dated 2292010 passed by thisCoL ex 3 Z After Iearned counsel for the plaintifappellant 00 and going the records of the case this appealdeserves for the reasons to be givenhereinafter 7 Z The claimof the plaintifappellant was that he along defendantsespondentsNos 4 to 6 had purchased with 8280square feet Iand comprised in Khasra No2411 minl 2 3 811 911 1013 22 23 sltuated in Village Salimpur Musalmana Tehsil andDistrict Jaiandhar as entered in Jamabandies for the years19871988 and 199293 shown red in the site plan attachedwith the plaint hereinafter referred to as the suitland vide sale deed dated 3071984 Exhibit P l from Gurcharan Singhthrough his General Power of Attorney holder Chander Malhotra for a sale consideration of Rs360001 Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document r 85 n 8 Requiar Second Appeal 112 of 2008 tOSMle The possession of the suit Iand had been delivered to the plaintiffv appellantand defendantsrespondents Nos 4 to 6 Atthe time of purchase one roomkitchen and boundarywall had already been constructed After the purchaseof the suit Iand he plaintiHe m appellantand Nos 4 to 6 had and sanctioned mutation No1931 in their favour got 0 C0 The ciaim of the was admitted in toto by the I defendantsrespondentsNos 4 to 6 in the written C5 statementfiled by them ciaimof the contesting defendantsespondents The Z Nos l and 2 on the other hand was that Gurcharan Singh whO of 44 Kanals 16 Marlas of Iand carved out plots and was owner I persons Said Gurcharan Sinh eXeCUted sold the same to 2 Z an agreement to sellin favour of defendantespondent Nol 00 throughhisattorney Ram Sunder for sale of Iand on 1251995 further alleged that Ram for a sum of Rs200001 It was 2 Z Power of Attorney of Gurcharan Singh had Sunder 125 1995 in favour of executed Power of Attorney on No1 It was furtherallegedthat defendante respondent Nol was owner in of the suit Iand and hadbecome cosharer with the plaintifappellantand as suchthe was not entitied to injunctionagainst a colarer deniedthat defendantsrespondentsNos1 and 2 ever It was threatenedthe plaintifappellant to him from the suit iande Defendant respondent Nol IS the son of Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 4ee m4 Reclular Second Appeal Noa1412 of 2008 lO8MIe No2 Nol had allegedly transferred the Iand in favour of his wife Kaur vide registeredsale deeds Exhibits D3 and DA and therefore as per case of the contesting defendants 1 Kaur had become cosharer in the suit Iand C The recitals in the sale deed dated 0 0 307 1984 Exhibit P lO in respect of the suit Iand executed by I through his General Power of Attorney holder C5 Gurcharan I Chander Malhotra for a sale consideration of Rs 360001 and proforma defendants Z in favour of the Nos 4 to 6 clearly show that possessionof the suit 2 0 Iand had been deliveredto the piaintifappellantand proforma I Nos 4 to 6 As per sale deed Exhibit f Z P there was a preexisting one room kitchen and boundarywall In pursuance of the sale deed Exhibit P 11 00 over the suit Iand No1931 had also been sanctioned Mutation No 1931 mwo rnutation Z and the sale deed are reflected Ill the revenue record ie tl Ja mabandies for the year 1987 1988 and 19921993 which were producedon record by the plaintifappellantin the evidence Iedby him In the presence of such an impeccabledocumentary evidence in favour of the both the Courts below ought to have the claim of the plaintifappellant when the recitals in the sale deed Exhibit point out in certain terms that possessionof the suit Iand which had a preeexisting one roorn kitchen and boundary wa11 had been delivered to the and proforma defendants Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 1 er m5m RegularSecond Appeal Noe 1412 of 2008 OSMI Nos4 to 6 Boththe Courts below have committed an error in the evidenceAs noticed above the claim of the defendantsespondents Nosl and 2 was that 1 Gurcharan who was owner of 44 KanaIs 16 Marlas of Iand had executed an to sell in favour of defendant 0 0 No l throughhis attorney Ram Sunder for sale of Iand I 1251995for a sum of Rs3200001 An agreementto sell C5 on I does not in any waY confer title but merely confers a right to thesale deed executed In the written statement filed by the Z get defendants execution of any sale deed was not However a sale deed was exhibited during evidence I bythe beyond pleadings which was objectedto CO Z The trial Court did not decide this objection and the Iower 00 appellate Court ignoredit On the other hand the proved the 7 Z execution of sale deed Exhibit P lJ and his possessionover the ll Suit Iand byproducing Parmod Kumar PW l9 an official of the office of the SubRegistrar who deposed that the sale deed was executed in his presence and was duly recorded in the of Sub Registrar Banarsi Dass Chadha himself appeared in thewitness box as PW 2 to support his case Ashok Kumar 0W is the DeedWriter who after scribing the sale deed Exhibit P had explained the contents thereof to the vendorvendee and the witnesses The sale deed Exhibit Pl1 was signed in his presence Ashok Kumar W fUrther Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 1 0 4V e6m Regular Second Appeal No 1412 of 2008 lOSMIe 1 that he had made an entry in his register pertaining to the sale deed at SerialNo277 dated 3071984 Rajnish ChanderMalhotra PWe 4 wronglymentioned as P W was the GeneralPower of Attorney Holder of Gurcharan Singh Rajnish 1 Chander MaIhotra cpw deposedthat the suit iand had been SOld r to the and proforma defendantsespondentsNosA to 6 0 0 registeredsaledeed Exhibit P on the basis of General I of Attorney which was exhibited as P3 before the trial t5 Power I Coutt Chander Malhotra PWAJ deposed in unequivocal that possessionof the suit Iand had been deliveredto the Z terms purchasers 1e the and proforma defendants l NosA to 6 in his presence This deposition of I Chander Ma1hotra PW Al has been wrongIy ignored by t Z boththe Courts below The plaintifopellant has thus been able to prove on record that he had been in possession ofthe suitland OO since 1984 7 Z No doubt there a re demarcation reports Exhibits record but these were prepared DV61A and DW61B on without the who was owner in ofthe suit Iand since the year 1984 and therefore possession these demarcation do not affect the rightsof the plaintiffe The net result is that the defendanespondent No l or his wife Kaur at best islare cosharer Ico sharers if it is that a sale deed exists in their favour In that defendantespondent No 1 or his wife Paramjit Kaur must Iook for his l her Iand by filing a suit Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 r 7 Reqular Second Amoeal Noe 1412 of 2008 1OSMl for partition However since the was in of the suit Iand along with proformadefendants NosA to 6 since the year 1984 the Courts below were not justified Ill dismissinghis suit for permanentinjunctionin 1 respectof the suit Iand tr For the foregoingreasons this appeaisucceeds The 0 0 same iS ailowed the judgmentsand decrees passed I C9 by both the Courts beiow are set aside and suit of the plaintif I appellantfor permanentinjunction restrainingthe defendants Z respondentsNos 1 to 3 from interfering In the peaceful of the plaintiff and proforma defendantespondents er Nos 4 to 6 over the suit Iand as detailed and described Ill I the heading of the plaint IS herebydecreed However there shall Z be no order as to costs QO n l v 7 C MOHINDER PALI Z March i5 2011 JUDGE 1 ak ll r9 161 11 041 1 0 Y sc Il Rawat Seema 2012.11.29 11: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document