RSA No. 1833 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1833 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.4.2011. Sadhu .......Appellant Vs. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Naveen Kaushik, Advocate for Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs in brief was that Amrit Lal father of the plaintiffs had purchased the suit property vide registered sale deed dated 25.7.1983 for a consideration of `. 30,000/- from Mohan Lal, Kamlesh, Usha and Sham Lal. The vendors had purchased the suit land from the defendant, Sunehri and Chameli vide registered sale deed dated 16.5.1983. Mutations were sanctioned on the basis of sale deeds dated 16.5.1983 and 25.7.1983 in favour of the vendees. Initially, the suit land was on lease with Bharat Bhushan and the mutation was sanctioned in this regard on 23.3.1982. The lease rights were thereafter transferred in favour of Surjit Bahadur and mutation in this regard was sanctioned on 3.10.1994. RSA No. 1833 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Thereafter, the lease deed was transferred in favour of the plaintiff No.1 Sunil Kumar and mutation No. 6448 was sanctioned on 3.10.1994. Sunil Kumar plaintiff No.1 surrendered his lease rights in favour of his father Amrit Lal vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1994. As a result of this, Amrit Lal came in possession of the suit land. Amrit Lal died on 17.1.2002 and thereafter, plaintiffs became owners in exclusive possession of the suit land and mutation was sanctioned in their favour. However, the revenue entries continued in favour of Mohan Lal and Basheshar nath, Sadhu Ram and Chameli. The said entries were wrong in view of the mutations No. 6450, 6451, 3535, 6447, 6448. By taking undue advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue record the defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction but later withdrew the said suit in order to raise illegal construction. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that he was a co-sharer in the suit land and the same had not been partitioned, so far. Defendant was in possession of the suit property along with his sisters. Plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land and had not come to the court with clean hands. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as detailed in para no.1 of the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the defendant is liable to be restrained from interfering into the possession of the suit land and or raising construction thereon? OPP RSA No. 1833 of 2011 (O&M) -3- 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi and or cause of action to file this suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is band for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true facts from the court if so its effect? OPD 7. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 24.10.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs, in order to prove their case, proved on record sale deed (Ex. P-1) dated 16.5.1983 which was thumb marked by the defendant Sadhu Ram. PW-9- Dharminder Siwach, Handwriting and Finger prints Expert gave his opinion that the thumb impressions of Sadhu Ram on the sale deed matched with his standard thumb impressions on Vakalatnama dated 17.6.2005. The defendant failed to rebut the said evidence, led by the plaintiffs, qua execution of the sale deed (Ex. P-1). As per the sale deed (Ex. P-1), Sadhu Ram, Sunehri and Chameli had sold 6 Kanals 12 Marlas of land to Mohan Lal, Kamlesh, Usha and Sham Lal. The vendees of the sale deed (Ex. P-1) thereafter, sold the suit property to Amrit Lal vide RSA No. 1833 of 2011 (O&M) -4- registered sale deed dated 25.7.1983 (Ex.P-2). The Deed Writer Sat Prakash Gupta deposed that he had scribed the sale deeds (Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2). Vide the registered lease deed dated 19.2.1982 (Ex.P-3) Sadhu Ram and Chameli gave the suit land on lease to Bharat Bhushan for a period of 50 years. Bharat Bhushan, in turn, gave the lease rights to Surjit Bahadur vide registered lease deed (Ex. P-4) dated 12.11.1982 for a period of 49 years. The Deed Writer PW-2 Ramesh Gupta, Advocate deposed that he had scribed the lease deeds (Ex. P-3 and Ex.P-4). Mutations sanctioned on the basis of the lease deeds were also proved on record. Surjit Bahadur further transferred the lease rights in favour of Sunil Kumar-plaintiff No.1 vide lease deed (Ex.P-8) dated 5.7.1983 for a period of 48 years. Mutation in this regard (Ex. P-16) was duly sanctioned. Plaintiff No.1 relinquished lease rights in favour of his father vide relinquishment deed (Ex. P-9) dated 1.9.1994 and mutation (Ex.P-21) was sanctioned in this regard. Thus, Amrit Lal came in possession of the suit property after the relinquishment deed was executed by plaintiff No.1 in his favour. After the death of Amrit Lal on 17.1.2002, plaintiffs came in exclusive possession of the suit property. In these circumstances, the defendant could not interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs as he had no title or interest in the suit property. The courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the entries in the jamabandies had not been correctly made in terms of the sequence of events mentioned above. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. RSA No. 1833 of 2011 (O&M) -5- Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Gurpreet