R.S.A. No. 3363 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3363 of 2009 Decided On : 07.10.2009 Smt. Shakuntla ...Petitioner versus Ram Pal and another ...Respondents A N D R.S.A. No. 3369 of 2009 Smt. Shakuntla ...Petitioner versus Ram Pal and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. H. S. Hooda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of Regular Second Appeal No.3363 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff, arising out of suit for mandatory injunction and in alternative for possession (Civil Suit No.519 of 1994) having purchased the property vide sale deed R.S.A. No. 3363 of 2009 -2- dated 01.10.1991 Ex.P-2 from one Raja Rati Ram and Regular Second Appeal No. 3363 of 2009 arises out of suit for injunction (Civil Suit No.94 of 2001) filed by Ram Pal on the basis of ownership over the suit property in which the present appellant was defendant No.4. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed, whereas the suit filed by the defendant has been decreed by the Courts below. One Raja Rati Ram was owner of the suit property. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the same vide sale deed dated 01.10.1991, after verifying the title of her vendor as per the Jamabandi for the year 1987-88 and thus, the plaintiff claimed a decree for mandatory injunction and in the alternative for possession. On the other hand, stand of the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 94 of 2001 was that Raja Rati Ram was neither owner nor in possession of the suit property in the year 1991. Therefore, the alleged sale deed is illegal, invalid and void. It was pointed out that Raja Rati Ram vide registered sale deed dated 12.07.1965 Ex.DW-8/2, sold away a piece of land measuring 282 square yards comprising in khasra Nos.431 and 436 including the land in question and the portion lying towards South to Bimal Parsad Jain. In a litigation between the defendants, the matter was compromised before this Court when the appeal filed by defendant No.2 in Civil Suit No.94 of 2001 was disposed of on 19.05.1993 on the basis of compromise dated 02.03.1993. It is, thus, pleaded that Raja Rati Ram was not owner of the suit R.S.A. No. 3363 of 2009 -3- property on the date of sale in favour of the appellant, he having sold the same earlier. Both the Courts have found that the property purchased by the appellant from Raja Rati Ram does not convey any valid title in favour of the appellant, as the said property is part of the property sold to Bimal Parsad Jain. It also found that the defendants are owners of the suit property on the basis of sale deed Ex.PX/2 dated 31.8.1965 executed in favour of Ravi Chand Aggarwal. Ravi Chand Aggarwal has further executed sale in favour of Santosh on 25.5.1985 Ex.PX/3. Santosh further sold property to Ram Pal, the defendant vide sale deed dated 3.8.1990. It also found from the judgment and decree Exs.D-6 and D-7, the existence of plot of Bimal Parsad Jain in the South of the suit property and being used as rasta is recognized. The sale deed in favour of Bimal Parsad Jain Ex.DW-8/2 shows that in the North of property of Bimal Parsad Jain, there is property of Raja Rati Ram. It is the said property, which has been sold by Raja Rati Ram in favour of the defendants. The argument that the property, which is subject matter of sale deed Ex.P-2 is not referable to the property sold to Bimal Parsad Jain vide sale deed Ex.DW-8/2, was negated. It was found that the area of portion sold vide Ex.DW-A/2 is more, but it includes 61 square yards of land purchased by the plaintiff. Both the Courts have examined numerous documents produced by the parties on record including site plans and the R.S.A. No. 3363 of 2009 -4- sale deeds and returned a finding of fact that the property purchased by the appellant on 1.10.1991 vide sale deed Ex.P-2 forms part of property already sold by Raja Rati Ram in favour of Bimal Parsad Jain vide sale deed dated 12.7.1965. It was, thus, found that Raja Rati Ram had no saleable interest in the suit property in which he could convey title in favour of the present appellant. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer to any finding, which is based upon misreading of evidence or that any evidence has been misread or not taken into consideration, while returning a finding that the suit property was already sold by Raja Rati Ram in the year 1965. In view of the findings of fact recorded, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. OCTOBER 07, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini/Vimal JUDGE