IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3236 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 3, 2011. Sheo Dutt and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Mahesh Kumar and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Narnaul dismissing the appeal against judgment and decree dated 01.05.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narnaul vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.3236 of 2010 Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed by appellants- plaintiffs for a decree for declaration to the effect that respondents- defendants No.3 and 4 i.e. Municipal Committee, Narnaul is the owner in possession of the property in dispute and that hence, sale deed bearing No.2071 dated 09.01.1998 executed by respondent-defendant No.2 in favour of respondent-defendant No.1 is illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside. Hence, as per the case of appellants-plaintiffs, he is having no right in the property in dispute and that rather the property in dispute is owned by respondents-defendants No.3 and 4. However, respondents No.3 and 4 have not filed any suit for setting aside the sale deed allegedly executed by respondent-defendant No.2 in favour of respondent-defendant No.1. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned courts below that present appellants- plaintiffs are having no locus standi to challenge the sale deed allegedly executed by respondent-defendant No.2 in favour of respondent-defendant No.1 when he is not claiming any right in the property in dispute. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 2 RSA No.3236 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 3, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3