R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.05.2010 Harkesh ....Appellant versus Balwan Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of RSA No.1185 and RSA No. 1186 of 2010 both titled as Harkesh Vs. Balwan Singh and others, as common questions of law and facts are involved. For brevity sake, facts are being taken from RSA No.1185 of 2010. The respondent/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the plot comprised in khewat No.196, khatoni No.245, rectangle No.506 (1-18) marlas and khasra No.655 (0- 04) marlas, as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 and mutation No.1319, situated at village Anchera Khurd, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. The plaintiffs claimed the relief on the basis of ownership and possession by claiming that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs, by way of registered sale deed, and in pursuance thereto, mutation was duly sanctioned and they were shown to be in possession of the property in dispute. R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The suit was contested by the defendant/appellant by taking preliminary objections, that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was false and frivolous. The ownership of the plaintiffs over the plot in dispute was denied. The other preliminary objections were also taken. On merits, it was pleaded, that the suit land was transferred in favour of the defendant/appellant about 30 years back vide Ex.D1, on receipt of consideration amount. It was claimed, that it was the defendant/appellant, who was owner in possession of the plot in dispute and the goods lying therein were also claimed to be that of the defendant/appellant and not that of the respondent/plaintiffs. Though, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit by placing reliance on Ex.D1, which was said to have been signed by the plaintiffs themselves. The learned lower appellate Court reversed the finding of the learned trial Court, for the reason that Ex.D1, was said to be a deed transferring the title in favour of the defendant/appellant, which was not registered or stamped. The sale consideration was shown to be of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only). The learned lower appellate Court came to the conclusion, that the property worth more than Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only), could not be transferred by way of unregistered transfer deed. The learned lower appellate Court further held, that Ex.D1 cannot be read in evidence for want of registration. The learned lower appellate Court on the basis of documentary evidence i.e. jamabandi on record, came to the conclusion, that it was the plaintiffs who were in possession of the plot in dispute, and consequently decreed the suit, whereas cross- objections filed by the defendant/appellant were ordered to be dismissed. Mr. Vikram Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contends that this appeal raises the following substantial R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2010 (O&M) -3- questions of law: - “1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court does not suffer from an apparent illegality and perversity as the material piece of evidence has been ignored? 2. Whether the respondent/plaintiffs were estopped by their conduct from re-claiming the property after receipt of true sale consideration and delivery of possession? 3. Whether the relief of permanent injunction could be granted to the party not in possession?” In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that Ex.D1 was duly proved on record, which showed that the total sale consideration for the plot had been paid to the respondent/plaintiffs, under which the possession was also transferred to the defendant/appellant. The learned lower appellate Court, by ignoring this piece of evidence and thereby reversing the judgment of the learned trial Court, committed an illegality. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned lower appellate Court is on the face of it perverse, which deserves to be set aside. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that in view of Ex.D1, the respondent/plaintiffs were estopped by their conduct from re-claiming the property which stood transferred to the defendant/appellant. It was finally contended that the learned Court committed an error in granting the injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiffs, though it was the defendant/appellant who was in possession of the property in pursuance to Ex.D1. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, actually revolve around Ex.D1, as it is the R.S.A. No. 1185 of 2010 (O&M) -4- basis of raising all the three contentions. The learned lower appellate Court rightly held, that by way of Ex.D1, it was claimed that the property worth Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) was transferred by way of un-registered document and possession handed over. The document Ex.D1 was rightly ignored by the learned lower appellate Court, as it was not admissible in evidence, for want of registration. Therefore, it cannot be said, that the learned lower appellate Court has ignored the material evidence, which rendered the judgment perverse. The plaintiffs being owners of the property had every right to claim injunction, once they were proved to be in possession of the property in dispute, as per the revenue record and other evidence led, in support of this plea. The learned lower appellate Court, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a finding, that it is the plaintiffs who were in possession of the property, therefore, it cannot be said that no injunction could be granted in favour of the party in possession. For the reasons stated, the substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 04, 2010 R.S.