R.S.A.No.3069 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3069 of 2007 Date of Decision : 04.08.2009 Sardar Mohd. ...Appellant Versus Akhtar Hussain and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for respondent No.4. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.2 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiffs claiming exclusive possession over the land measuring 10 Kanals 18 Marlas, was decreed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs have purchased the aforesaid land vide sale deed dated 11.8.1958 from one Safi Mohd., father of defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that though the property was purchased, but the revenue records continued to reflect Safi Mohd. as owner. After his death, defendant No.1 was recorded as owner in the revenue records. Taking benefit of wrong entry in revenue records, the said defendant has sold the land purchased by the plaintiffs again to defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 22.3.1996. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration claiming title R.S.A.No.3069 of 2007 2 on the basis of sale deed dated 11.8.1958 executed by Safi Mohd. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 11.8.1958. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that defendant has raised a plea that he is a bona fide purchase for valuable consideration, but no such issue was framed by the trial Court and, therefore, the appellant could not lead evidence to show that he was bona fide purchase for valuable consideration. The suit filed in the year 1996 was decided by the learned trial Court on 22.12.2005 i.e. almost after 10 years. During this long pendency of the civil suit, the defendant/appellant has not sought any issue on the ground that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Such an issue was not claimed even before the learned first Appellate Court. Therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to raise an argument that proper issues were not framed in second appeal for the first time. It appears that the said issue was rightly not claimed since the vendor of the defendant/appellant had no title, which he could pass to defendant No.2 in the year 1996. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 04.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE