IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 27, 2008 Daya Ram and others ....Appellants Versus Tej Ram and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the appellants. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs-appellants was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palwal on 26.10.2004. They filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon on 16.4.2007. Aggrieved of the same, plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were owners in possession of residential plots bearing Ahata Nos. 202 and 203 situated within the revenue estate of village Ali Brahman. The said plots were their ancestral property. It was initially owned by Muru. Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 -2- After his death, father of the plaintiffs inherited the same and, thereafter, the plaintiffs became its owners in possession. They constructed residential house on the suit property on which they spent huge amount. Even their father had also constructed a house on the suit property on its eastern side, which was depicted with letters ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘G’ and ‘E’ in the site plan. Defendants No. 1 to 3 had no right, title or interest over the suit property. Even they had not authorized defendants No. 1 to 3 to execute a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs had filed a civil suit titled “Daya Ram and others Vs. Girdhari and others, wherein defendants No. 1 to 3 were restrained from alienating the suit property to any other person. Inspite of due notice and knowledge of the interim order, defendants No. 1 to 3, in collusion with defendant No. 4, transferred the suit property in favour of defendant No. 4 on 22.9.1997 vide registered sale deed. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale deed in question was illegal, ineffective, inoperative, unjustified, wrong, null and void and, thus, not binding upon them. The same was liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs came to know about the sale deed only when defendant No. 4 forcibly and illegally tried to take possession of the suit property. Hence, they filed the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Defendants No. 1 to 3 opposed the suit on the ground that Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 -3- the plaintiffs were not the owners in possession of Ahata Nos. 202 and 203. They even denied that the suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiffs or it had fallen to their share from Muru. In fact, they themselves were owners in possession of the suit property from the time of their forefathers. Under the garb of the present suit, the plaintiffs were threatening to dispossess the defendants illegally and forcibly. They had sold the suit property to defendant No. 4 for a valuable consideration through registered sale deed dated 22.9.1997 and possession was duly delivered to the said defendant. They, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit property. Defendant No. 4 filed his separate written statement, wherein he claimed that the suit had been filed by the plaintiffs in collusion with defendants No. 1 to 3 and by suppressing true and material facts from the Court. He also prayed for dismissal of the suit. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are owners in possession of the suit property which had fallen to their share from one Muru through their father. The defendants No. 1 to 3 had no right to sell the same. The appellants had filed the civil suit, wherein the defendants were restrained from alienating the suit property. Inspite of the same, the latter went ahead to sell the property vide registered sale deed dated 22.9.1997. Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 -4- Therefore, learned lower Courts were not justified in denying the relief claimed by the appellants. With a view to establishing that they were owners in possession of the suit property, which, according to them, was ancestral in nature, the plaintiffs-appellants were to place on record necessary evidence in the nature of revenue record to show that the land in question was ancestral and owned by Muru from whom their father had inherited the same and finally they had come to own the suit property. No such evidence was brought on record by the appellants. They only placed on record a copy of site plan Ex. P.1. Such a site plan would not confer any title upon the appellants. Other documents relied upon by the appellants were Nakal Khasra Paimiash Abadi mark ‘A’ and copy of Shizra Paimaish mark ‘B’. These documents were not formally proved and were simply placed on record. In the absence of their formal exhibition, they could not be read into evidence. Therefore, learned lower Courts were fully justified in not placing any reliance on site plan Ex. P.1, besides Nakal Khasra Paimaish Abadi mark ‘A’ and copy of Shizra Paimaish mark ‘B’. Though, according to the appellants, they had filed a suit so as to restrain defendants No. 1 to 3 from alienating the suit property and an injunction order was passed in their favour, yet it is Regular Second Appeal No. 2607 of 2007 -5- not proved that the defendants were having any knowledge of the order of injunction. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the alienation was made by defendants No. 1 to 3 in defiance of the injunction order. The concurrent findings arrived at by the learned lower Courts are based upon proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. No case is made out for any interference in the same. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellants do not arise for consideration. The appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 27, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO