R.S.A.No.4591 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.4591 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Satpal and another ......Appellants Versus Subhash Chander and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.R.K.Singla, Advocate for respondent No.4 **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they had purchased plot Nos. 15, 16 and part of plot No.17 in equal shares from defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 19.11.1990 for a consideration of ` 35,500/-. The said plots measured 19 marlas and form part of khasra No.39/1. Plaintiffs were in R.S.A.No.4591 of 2009 (O&M) 2 possession of the plots in dispute. Defendants No.2 to 4 in connivance with defendant No.1 started interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, averred that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 had no concern with the suit property nor had caused any interference qua possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Defendants No.2 to 4, in their written statement, averred that they had purchased part of plot No.15 measuring 30’x30’ bearing part of khasra No.32//32/2 and 39//1 vide sale deed dated 17.6.1998 from defendant No.1 through his attorney Vidya Sagar. Defendant No.3 had purchased the plot measuring 183 square yards out of the said khasra numbers vide sale deed dated 26.5.1998. The possession of the plots in question had been handed over to the defendants after they had purchased the same. Defendant No.2 had constructed a room, a store and had also filled in the foundations of a kitchen and had installed a hand pump in the plot in dispute. Defendants No.2 and 3 had also applied for release of an electric connection. Defendant No.3 had also constructed a room in the plot purchased by him During the pendency of the suit, defendants had allegedly raised some construction over the suit property and plaintiffs also sought a decree for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction raised by them during the pendency of the suit. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were R.S.A.No.4591 of 2009 (O&M) 3 framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff are entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the defendants have willfully violated the order of the court dated 21.5.1999 and 19.7.1999 as alleged ? OPD 4.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the right of defendant No.2 to 4 are liable to be protected under the Transfer of Property Act ? OPD 7. Relief.” The Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) vide judgment and decree dated 16.2.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to get the possession of the encroached portion on which defendants No.2 and 3 had raised construction over plot No.15 bearing khasra No.39//1 and defendants No.2 and 3 were directed to remove their construction within two months. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal filed by defendants No.2 and 3 by Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 3.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.2 and 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No.4591 of 2009 (O&M) 4 The plaintiffs in order to prove their case proved on record the sale deed dated 19.11.1990 Ex.P-2 executed in their favour by defendant No.1. As per the said sale deed the plaintiffs had purchased plot Nos.15, 16 and part of plot No.17. On the other hand, the appellants proved on record the sale deeds dated 17.6.1998 vide which they had purchased the plot measuring 30'x 30' from defendant No.1 and sale deed dated 26.5.1998 vide which defendant No.3- appellant No.2 had purchased the plot measuring 183 square yards from defendant No.1. It has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in para 23 of the judgment that as per Ex.P-3, copy of the jamabandi for the year 1997-98, land bearing khasra No.39//1 had not been formally partitioned but the evidence on record showed that the same had been partitioned by way of carving plots out of the said khasra numbers. Moreover, case of both the parties was that they had purchased the plots out of the suit property. Hence, it was established on record that the khasra No.39/1 had been divided into small plots. Since the plaintiffs had purchased plot Nos. 15, 16 and part of plot No.17 in the year 1990, plaintiff were liable to protect their possession qua the suit property. The plaintiffs had documents of title in their favour. The sale deeds alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the appellants were in the year 1998 thus much later than the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. The documentary evidence led by the defendants to establish their possession was prepared during the pendency of the suit. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly decreed the suit of the R.S.A.No.4591 of 2009 (O&M) 5 plaintiffs. 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 April 18, 2011 anita