R.S.A.No. 2136 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2136 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.2.2011 Dayal Singh ......Appellant Versus Hansa Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dis-possessing him from the suit land. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner in possession of the suit land as he had purchased the same from Mulkha Singh in the year 1976. Gurbachan Singh and Sampuran Kaur had got sanctioned mutation No.973 dated 11.3.1999 in their R.S.A.No. 2136 of 2009 2 favour on the basis of illegal partition order dated 25.7.1986. The mutation had been sanctioned after a lapse of 12 years. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that Gurbachan Singh and Sampuran Kaur were owners in possession of the suit land. During partition, suit land fell to the share of Sampuran kaur and she had sold the same to the defendant vide registered sale deed dated 6.6.2000. It was denied that Mulkha Singh was owner of the suit land or that plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. The plaintiff had never challenged the partition proceedings. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land illegally and forcibly? OPP. 2. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land on the basis of Mutation No.973 dated 11.3.1999? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 5. Whether the plaint does not disclose any cause of action ? OPD 6. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide R.S.A.No. 2136 of 2009 3 judgment and decree dated 14.5.2003. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The property in dispute was partitioned vide order dated 25.7.1986. Mutation was sanctioned on the basis of the partition proceedings in favour of Sampuran Kaur qua the suit land. Sampuran Kaur sold her share to Hansa Singh and as per the latest revenue record, defendant was in possession of the suit property. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to fail. 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 February 14, 2011 anita