R.S.A. No. 1849 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1849 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.1.2009 Jarnail Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Satpal and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. A.K. Goel, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 11.4.2007 and 16.2.2008 passed by the learned Courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for injunction. The plaintfff sought injunction against the appellants from interfering in posession of his plot, which was said to have purchsed six years prior to purchase by the appellant/defendants. The suit was contested by defendant/appellants on the plea that in pursuance of the sale deed in their favour, they were entitled to 416.83 sq. yards of land. The learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff/respondent purchased 250 sq. yards of land, much prior to the sale in favour of the appellant/defendants, therefore, R.S.A. No. 1849 of 2008 (O&M) -2- appellant/defendants had no right to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff/respondent. The defence raised by the appellant/defendants was rejected by the learned Courts below by observing that the sale deed of appellants, besides area, also disclosed dimension, and if the dimensions are taken into consideration, the area sold to the appellant/defendants comes to 355.66 sq. yards. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that though the learned Courts below were justified in granting decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiff qua his plot, but were not justified in recording a finding that the area sold to the appellant/defendants was only 366.66 sq. yards against the stipulation in the sale deed. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration by this Court in this regular second appeal: - “1. Whether the learned Courts below were justified in recording a finding against the documentary evidence place on record by way of sale deed executed in favour thus, perverse? 2. Whether the Civil Court could alter the area purchased in a suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent even though he was not vendor of appellant/defendants?” The substantial questions of law, as raised, do not arise for consideration in the present appeal, as the lis was between the plaintiff and appellant/defendants and only relief claimed by the plaintiff/respondent was that the defendant/appellants, be restrained from interfering in 250 sq. yards of plot purhased by him about six years prior R.S.A. No. 1849 of 2008 (O&M) -3- to the sale in favour of the appellant/defendants. However, it is made clear that in case, claim is raised by the appellant/defendants against their vendor to claim the additional area, or refund of amount, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below would not operate as res judicata, or bar to such suit, as there is no dispute stands adjudicated by the learned Courts inter se between appellants and their vendors. In view of observations made, there is no merit in the present appeal. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 29, 2009 R.S.