R.S.A.No.1001 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.1001 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 8.3.2010 Satnam Singh ....Appellant Versus Surjit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.2916-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.2917-C of 2010 in/and R.S.A.No.1001 of 2010 The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal. He filed a suit for possession of the suit property alleging that the respondents are tenant thereon @ Rs.1,500/- per month and that they have failed to pay the rent and total rent along with interest upto April 2007 which comes to Rs.73,440/-. He pleaded that he is entitled to recover the same and also the possession of the suit property. The respondents contested the suit and pleaded that an agreement to sell had been executed between the father of the plaintiff/appellant and the respondents on 12.11.1987 for a R.S.A.No.1001 of 2010 (O&M) -2- consideration of Rs.1,000/- and the possession of the suit property was delivered to them on that very day. The respondents thereafter constructed a house consisting of three rooms and courtyard and are in possession of the same since then and according to the agreement the sale deed was to be executed by 30.11.1989 after getting permission from the Court of competent jurisdiction under the Guardians and Wards Act and if the Court did not give the same then the sale deed was to be executed two months thereafter and if during the said period the minor became major then he was to execute the sale deed. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of possession as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs.54,000/- as mesne profit for the use and occupation of the house as alleged in the plaint?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, on what amount and at what rate?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff agreed to sell 11-1/3 marlas of land as mentioned in preliminary objection No.1 in favour of the defendants, if so, its effect?OPD 5. Relief. Both the Courts below recorded a finding against the appellant and held that he had failed to prove the tenancy in favour of the respondents whereas the agreement to sell was found to be a valid R.S.A.No.1001 of 2010 (O&M) -3- document and the Courts thereafter went on to extend the benefit of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are erroneous and liable to be set aside. He contended that the benefit of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act should not have been granted in favour of the respondents. He further contended that in view of the fact that the respondents failed to perform their part of the agreement, the property deserves to be reverted back to him and he was entitled to retrieve the same by way of a suit for possession. The learned trial court held issue No.4 against the respondents while in appeal the findings on this issue were reversed. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The appellant had approached the Court by way of a suit for possession alleging that the respondents are tenants in the premises in question and that they had raised construction on the suit property. But if the evidence on record led by the appellant is to be seen, then it is clear that he has failed to establish this fact. It is a settled principle of law that a person who approaches the court and claims a relief by pleading facts he necessarily has to succeed if he establishes such facts by way of cogent evidence on record. There is no material on record to show that the respondents were ever inducted as tenants under the appellant. To the contrary, the agreement to sell has been established by the material on record. The R.S.A.No.1001 of 2010 (O&M) -4- appellant has not denied the signatures of his father on the agreement to sell. It is not a suit filed by the respondents seeking specific performance of the agreement. It was a suit filed by the appellant for possession on the aforementioned facts and for the reason that there has been a deficit of evidence to substantiate the case of the appellant, the first Appellate Court has rightly disentitled him to the relief as prayed for by him. Whether or not the respondents were entitled to the protection of Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act is immaterial to the appellant in the given set of circumstances for the reason that the appellant failed to establish the tenancy and especially the facts that he had pleaded. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 8.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss