RSA No.2489 of 2007(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 2489 of 2007 Date of decision: 25.3.2011 Bikkar Singh and Others .....Appellants Versus Sukhdev Singh and Others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate, for the appellants Mr.P.K.Phulka,Advocate for the respondents **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that they were owners in exclusive possession of land measuring 26 kanals 3 marlas bearing khasra No. 596/2. The said khasra number had come to the share of the plaintiffs in partition proceedings filed by them against defendants No. 1 to 4. The sale deed dated 19.5.2004 executed by defendants No. 1 to 4 in favour of defendants No. 5 to 7 regarding land measuring 13 kanals 7 marlas was illegal, null and void. Mutation No. 7751 sanctioned, on the basis of the said sale deed, RSA No.2489 of 2007(O&M) 2 was illegal, null and void. Plaintiffs came to know about the fraud and misrepresentation after some days of the execution of the alleged sale deed when defendants No. 5 to 7 tried to take possession of the suit land from the plaintiffs. Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 were proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No. 2, in his written statement, denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the order dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had been passed at the back of all the defendants and appeal filed against the said order was pending. Defendants No. 1 to 4 were owners in possession of the suit land and had executed the sale deed in favour of defendants No. 5 to 7. Defendants No. 5 to 7, in their written statement, averred that the said defendants were bona fide purchasers for consideration. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether defendants No. 5 to 7 are bona fide purchasers of land measuring 13 kanals 7 marlas from defendants No. 1 to 4, Khewat Khatauni No. 37/97 comprising in Khasra No. 596 min (13-7)?OPD ( 5 to 7) 4.Whether plaintiff has no cause of action or locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5.Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious to the RSA No.2489 of 2007(O&M) 3 knowledge of the plaintiff?OPD 6.Wheher suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 7. Relief” The Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 18.5.2006. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiffs preferred an Appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2006. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were in possession of the suit land as the same had come to their share in partition proceedings. However, the partition proceedings are not reflected in the revenue record. Plaintiff-Bikkar Singh admitted in his cross- examination that he had challenged the partition proceedings. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the partition proceedings was dismissed being time barred. Thereafter, the said order was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 13.6.2007 and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for deciding the appeal on merits. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that since the partition proceedings were still pending adjudication, plaintiffs could not derive any benefit from Exhibit P1 and were not in possession of the suit property in pursuance of Exhibit P1. Learned counsel for the RSA No.2489 of 2007(O&M) 4 appellants has failed to successfully challenge the said finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 25, 2011 arya