R. S. A. No. 1602 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1602 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 03, 2011 Surender Kumar .... Appellant Vs. Subhash Chand and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent no.1-Caveator. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4443-C of 2011 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal : Surender Kumar – plaintiff, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff's father Narain Dass – defendant no.2 (since deceased and represented by proforma respondents no.2 to 4 herein) was owner of the R. S. A. No. 1602 of 2011 (O&M) 2 suit property. He sold it defendant no.1 Subhash Chand vide sale deed dated 03.04.2003 registered on 10.04.2003. Vide rent note dated 10.04.2003 executed by Narain Dass, he was inducted as tenant in suit property except one room including a store. Plaintiff in the suit challenged the aforesaid sale deed and rent note alleging that suit house is the only residential house of the joint Hindu family of which defendant no.2 is karta. The house was constructed with joint Hindu family funds after selling ancestral agricultural land vide sale deed dated 20.05.1995. Consequently, the suit house was ancestral coparcenary property in which share of defendant no.2 was only 1/5th, whereas the remaining 4/5th share was owned by plaintiff and his brothers and mother. Impugned sale deed dated 03/10.04.2003 executed by defendant no.2 in favour of defendant no.1 is illegal and null and void being without consideration and legal necessity. Impugned rent note is also illegal and null and void. Possession of the suit property was never delivered to vendee defendant no.1. Plaintiff sought declaration that impugned sale deed and rent note are illegal and null and void. Permanent injunction restraining defendant no.1 from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property was also claimed. Defendant no.1 contested the suit and pleaded that he had purchased the suit property from defendant no.2 for valuable consideration. The sale was for legal necessity. Plaint averments were broadly denied. It R. S. A. No. 1602 of 2011 (O&M) 3 was denied that suit property was of joint Hindu family or coparcenary property or defendant no.2 had only 1/5th share therein. It has been pleaded that defendant no.1 became owner in possession of the suit property being bona fide purchaser and thereafter, suit property except one room including a store was let out to defendant no.2 vide rent note dated 10.04.2003. Impugned sale deed and rent note are legal and valid. Defendant no.1 is bona fide purchaser of the suit property. Various other pleas were also raised. Defendant no.1 also made counter claim alleging that plaintiff had forcibly and illegally taken possession of one room including a store out of the suit property by breaking open the lock of defendant no.1 on 18.06.2003 in breach of interim injunction order dated 13.06.2003 passed in the instant suit. Accordingly, decree for possession of the said room including store was claimed by way of counter claim along with mesne profits. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.2009, dismissed the suit as well as counter claim. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 15.03.2011. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that suit house was purchased by defendant no.2 from sale proceeds of ancestral R. S. A. No. 1602 of 2011 (O&M) 4 land, and therefore, the suit house also became ancestral coparcenary property in the hands of defendant no.2. The contention cannot be accepted because there is not even an iota of evidence on record to depict that the land sold by defendant no.2 vide sale deed dated 20.05.1995 was ancestral coparcenary property in his hands. Consequently, suit house, even if purchased from the sale proceeds of the said land, could not be said to be ancestral or coparcenary property in the hands of defendant no.2. In view thereof, plaintiff has no case whatsoever to succeed. In addition to the aforesaid, the impugned sale by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 is also proved to be for consideration and legal necessity. Total sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the impugned sale deed. Consequently, it is fully established that the impugned sale deed was for consideration. As regards legal necessity, defendant no.1 has asserted that defendant no.2 needed money for his business, for repayment of loan from private person and for house-hold expenses. Consequently, impugned sale deed is not illegal or null and void in any manner. In addition to the aforesaid, on the basis of impugned rent note, ejectment of defendant no.2 from the suit property has been ordered by Rent Controller and the said order has attained finality. It is correct that Rent Controller cannot determine the question of title. However, Rent R. S. A. No. 1602 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Controller has jurisdiction to determine the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Passing of ejectment order proves that defendant no.2 was tenant in the suit property under defendant no.1 and impugned rent note was, therefore, legal and valid. Defendant no.2 could not be tenant under defendant no.1 in any other capacity of defendant no.1 except that defendant no.1 had become owner of the suit property by way of impugned sale deed. Self-serving statement of the plaintiff in support of his case is not sufficient to establish his version. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Plaintiff has been rightly non-suited by both the courts below. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below against the plaintiff- appellant does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. May 03, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE