Regular Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.10.2008 Capt. Jarnail Singh …Appellant Versus Om Parkash and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.K.Virk, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Suit for permanent injunction instituted by the appellant- plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by learned Appellate Court below. Aggrieved against the same, regular second appeal was instituted in this Court. Briefly stated, a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents-defendants Om Parkash and Anwar Masih was filed with a prayer that permanent injunction be issued restraining them from alienating, transferring, mortgaging, raising any construction, changing the nature of the property as shown in the site plan accompanying the plaint at village Dhina, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The plaintiff has stated that two plots measuring four marlas each for a sale Regular Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 (O&M) 2 consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was purchased and an agreement to sell to this effect was executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1 on one side with defendant No.2 on 11.12.1996. It was stated that amount was equally contributed by plaintiff and defendant No.1. It was further stated that the possession of two plots was also delivered to plaintiff and defendant No.1. A grievance was made that defendants No.1 and 2 had connived together to dispose off the land falling to the share of the plaintiff to some third party for higher rates. Separate written statements were filed by the defendants. A preliminary objection was also raised that the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit as agreement to sell does not create any title, therefore, prayer for restraining the defendants from alienating, the property by way of transfer, and mortgage cannot be accepted. It was further stated that agreement dated 11.12.1996 is illegal and void and was not binding upon the defendants. It was further stated that the defendants had placed no document on record to show possession and title of defendant No.2. It was further stated that property in question was allotted to land-less labourers of the village. It was further stated that that it was agreed between the allottees and the Government that the allotted plots are not meant for sale and mortgage, therefore, any agreement to sell is against the policy of allotment. The defendants have also denied all the averments made in the plaint. Learned trial Court formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for, if so its effect? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in Regular Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 (O&M) 3 the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Whether the alleged agreement dt. 11.12.96 is illegal, null and void, if so its effect? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 7. Relief. Learned trial Court held that agreement to sell dated 11.12.1996 put up by the plaintiff is not a valid agreement. It was further held that from perusal of file, it is evident that there is no document in the name of Anwar Masih, defendant No.2, from whom the plaintiff is stated to have purchased the suit land. Learned trial Court further held as under:- “...From perusal of Ex.P1 it is made out that defendant No.2 purchased the said plot from James and Faquir Chand. But no sale deed has been produced to prove this transaction. Meaning thereby there is no document of title in favour of Anwar Masih defendant No.2. When he himself has no right in suit property, he cannot sell the same to any other person. Therefore, agreement to sell executed by defendant No.2 in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.1 conferred no right in favour of Regular Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 (O&M) 4 plaintiff and defendant No.1 with regard to suit property. As far as possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is concerned, there is no document on file to show his possession over the suit land. He himself stated in his cross-examination that he has not installed electricity connection in the suit land. But he has taken electricity from defendant No.2. This fact rebut his contention that he is residing in the suit land. Defendant No.1, however, has also failed to prove that how he came in possession over the suit land as there is no document of title in his favour also”. Learned Appellate Court below concurred with the findings of learned trial Court and held as under:- “...As per agreement to sell Ex.P1 Anwar Masih had purchased these two plots from James and Faqir Chand. From the perusal of the file it is further clear that two photostat copies of the sale agreement executed by Faqir Chand and James are also on record in favour of Anwar Masih, but in order to prove the title of Anwar Masih there is no title deed on the file. Similarly, Anwar Masih has also executed this agreement to sell Ex.P1 in favour of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is rightly pointed out by the lower Court that agreement to sell does not pass any title in favour of other person. In order to pass a Regular Second Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 (O&M) 5 title of immovable property a sale deed is required to be registered. Therefore, there is no document on the file to show that Anwar Masih had a valid title in the property in question. Therefore, he could not pass a better title of the property than he himself had in the same. Regarding the property in question status of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.1 is same. Both plaintiff and defendant No.1 have no title deed in their favour”. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. He has stated that the substantial question of law involved in the present case is that both the Courts below have acted against the law and facts of the case and have misread the evidence. This to me is not borne out from the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything from which it can be inferred that the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below suffers from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 15, 2008 “DK”