IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2300 of 2007 Date of Decision : April 01, 2008 Harjit Singh .....Appellant Versus Jagdish Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by appellant was dismissed by the trial Court on 5.2.2007 and the appeal preferred against the same was then dismissed by the first Appellate Court. Hence, the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure One Civil Suit No. 66 of 26.3.1998 was filed by Jatinder Kumar and Harish Kumar, sons of present respondent No. 1 against respondents No. 2 and 3 for recovery of possession by way of partition of plot measuring 4896 sq. ft. to the extent of 2400 sq. ft. This suit came to be decided on the basis of a compromise Ex. D2 vide order Ex. D3. The plaintiffs therein were given an area measuring 2000 sq. ft. instead of 2400 sq. ft. In the aforementioned suit, present respondents No. 2 and 3 did not plead anywhere that the possession of the suit property was with the present appellant. The appellant then filed the suit, seeking a decree for permanent Regular Second Appeal No. 2300 of 2007 -2- injunction restraining the respondents or anyone acting on their behalf or their attorneys from taking forcible possession or otherwise interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. He based his claim on an agreement Ex. P2 dated 10.7.1981, said to have been executed by one Ram Singh conveying the title in respect of the suit property in his favour. Respondent No. 3, while filing his written statement admitted the execution of agreement dated 10.7.1981, besides admitting the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. He also expressed no objection if the suit of the appellant was decreed as prayed for. The appellant also made a statement during the pendency of the suit that he did not want to pursue his suit against respondent No. 2 and the suit was, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn qua the said respondent. It is apparent that respondents No. 2 and 3 could not tolerate the fact that the sons of respondent No. 1 had been able to obtain the area measuring 2000 sq. ft. on the basis of compromise Ex. D2 and, thus, availed the services of the appellant so as to defeat the relief obtained by the sons of respondent No. 1. The alleged agreement Ex. P2 was said to have been entered into on 10.7.1981. The same is found to be scribed on a stamp-paper, which was purchased about four years earlier and, that too, for the purpose of execution of affidavit. The learned lower Courts were justified in concluding that this was a suspicious circumstance so as to reject the agreement Ex. P2. Moreover, such an agreement as Ex. P2 as well as writing Ex. P3 on reverse thereof were not got scribed from a regular Deed Writer. The name of the Scribe was not disclosed. It may not be out of place to mention here that the agreement Ex.P.2 was not a document of title. When Ram Singh himself was not shown to be in possession of the land being a mortgagee, he could not convey the title in Regular Second Appeal No. 2300 of 2007 -3- respect thereof in favour of the appellant. If the agreement Ex.P2 had been executed on 10.7.1981 and the possession of the suit land had been delivered to the appellant, respondents No. 2 and 3 in the earlier suit would have come out with the plea therein that they were not in possession of the suit property and rather it was the appellant who was in possession. They did not do so. They did not even ask for the impleadment of the appellant in the earlier civil suit. In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination. There is no force in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed ( T.P.S. MANN ) APRIL 01, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO