R.S.A.No. 4123 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 12.10.2009 R.S.A.No. 4123 of 2007 (O&M) Sona Devi and others ......Appellants Versus Banarasi Dass .......Respondent R.S.A.No. 220 of 2008 (O&M) Sona Devi and others ......Appellants Versus Banarasi Dass .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate, for the respondent(s). **** R.S.A.No. 4123 of 2007 (O&M) 2 SABINA, J. Vide this judgment, RSA Nos. 4123 of 2007 and 220 of 2008 would be disposed of as the civil suits, out of which the said appeals have arisen, were consolidated and were disposed of vide common judgment. Plaintiff-respondent Banarsi Dass filed a Civil suit No.565 of 1999 for declaration, whereas, Ram Kishan filed a Civil Suit No.566 of 1999 for permanent injunction. The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 9.5.2005 decreed the suit filed by the former and dismissed that filed by the latter. Ram Kishan (since deceased) through his legal representatives filed two appeals, which were dismissed by Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari vide judgment and decree dated 18.8.2007. Hence, the present appeals by the legal representatives of Ram Kishan. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. The facts in the cases are similar. The main dispute is regarding sale deeds dated 8.12.1998 and 12.2.1999. Respondent Banarsi Dass alleges to have purchased the suit land vide sale deed of the year 1999 while Ram Kishan, the present appellant, alleges to have purchased the property vide the other sale deed. The case of Banarsi Dass was regarding declaration as owner in R.S.A.No. 4123 of 2007 (O&M) 3 possession of the suit property with consequential relief of injunction against Ram Kishan. He alleged that he purchased the property from Baru Ram son of Kanu Ram, vide sale deed dated 12.2.1999. Baru Ram had two brothers Kalu Ram and Nanak who had migrated to other villages more than 50 years ago. They also died long back. Baru Ram had valid toile, which he passed on the Banarsi Dadd. Defendant Ram Kishan alleged in the said case having purchased the same property from Ranki Ram son of Kalu Ram and Bishna Ram and Kishna Ram sons of Nanak vide sale deed dated 8.12.1998. The said sale deed in favour of Ram Kishan was challenged by Banarsi Dass and he pleaded that the same was nullity and that he was owner in possession of the property. 3. Defendant Ram Kishan pleaded that the plaintiff had not come with clean hands and he had nothing to do with the property in question. Ram Kishan had purchased the plot in question vide sale deed dated 12.2.1999 and before that agreement of sale was executed on 27.11.1999. The sale deed in favour of Banarsi Dass could not have been executed after the agreement in favour of Ram Kishan. The document, if any, was bogus. It was denied that Baru Ram was the owner. Kalu Ram and Nanak, brothers of Baru Ram, R.S.A.No. 4123 of 2007 (O&M) 4 were stated to be the owners and the vendors of the defendant being their sons inherited the property and validity sold it to Ram Kishan.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of one plot fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed dated 8.12.1998 in favour of the defendant is null and void, illegal, result of fraud and is not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction? OPP 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act, conduct and deeds? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no legal right, title or authority to file the present suit? OPD 8. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. R.S.A.No. 4123 of 2007 (O&M) 5 Ram Kishan as well as Banarsi Dass had filed separate suits. Banarsi Dass filed a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the plot in dispute, whereas, Ram Kishan filed a suit for permanent injunction that Banarsi Dass be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over the plot in dispute. Ram Kishan, however, failed to prove on record the sale deed alleged to have been executed in his favour by the vendors. On the other hand, Banarsi Dass proved on record the sale deed Ex.P-1 executed in his favour by Baru Ram. Banarsi Dass examined the attesting witnesses and also proved on record a certificate from the Gram Panchayat that Baru Ram was the owner in possession of the property purchased by Banarsi Dass. On the other hand, Ram Kishan failed to prove the sale deed alleged to have been executed in his favour by his vendors Kalu Ram and Nanak. He also failed to establish that the alleged vendors were having any title with regard to the suit property. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that Banarsi Dass had been successful in proving his case. No substantial question of law arises in these regular second appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE October 12, 2009 anita