RSA No.2647 of 2005 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2647 of 2005 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.03.2010 Beant Singh and others .. Appellants Versus Rajinder Singh (through LRs) and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Narinder Lucky, Advocate for the appellants Mr.M.S.Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Mandeep Kaur, Advocate for the respondents . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellants for declaration that they are owners of the land in dispute and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession. The appellants had pleaded that they had purchased the land in dispute in 1965 from Amar Chand and Saudagar Singh, who had sold the same on behalf of Parmod Singh. After considering the entire evidence, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellants had not been able to prove the title of their vendor Parmod Singh, since at no point of time, the name of Parmod Singh was recorded as owner of the land in dispute. On the basis of this finding, both the Courts below as mentioned have dismissed the suit of the appellants. Following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the impugned judgments and RSA No.2647 of 2005 (O & M) ::2:: decrees passed by the courts below are contrary to law, evidence and facts on the file ? (b) Whether int the Courts below have wrongly declined the relief claimed in the suit in favour of the appellants ? (c) Whether the judgment and decree to which the appellants are not parties is binding upon the appellants ? (d) Whether the Ist Appellate Court was duly bound to decide the appeal issue wise after reappraisal of evidence ? (e) What the appellants can be denied ownership of the suit land which they had purchased by way of registered sale deed for valuable consideration ? (f) Whether the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are illegal against law as well as against the principle of natural justice ? The crucial question is question No.(e). Learned counsel has not been able to show me that the finding of the Courts below regarding the lack of the title of the vendor of the appellants is either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. Once this seminal question is held against the appellants question Nos. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) do not arise. Consequently, holding all the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay and Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, are dismissed. No costs. March 17, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE