R.S.A. No. 2523 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2523 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 3.2.2009 Harwinder Singh ....Appellant Versus Gobind Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 12.4.2005 and the first Appellate Court dated 11.4.2007. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents Gobind Singh and Mukhwinder Singh seeking to restrain them from raising any construction in the street which was described in the suit. It was pleaded by him that he was in possession of the house on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 6.10.1994 which he had purchased from one Pal Singh son of Surain Singh and that the gate of the said property and other residents of the locality opened in the said Gali shown as red in the site plan and that the said street had fallen in khasra No.99/1. It was pleaded that the house of R.S.A. No. 2523 of 2007 (O&M) -2- the respondents was towards eastern side of the street and they were threatening to raise construction abutting the house of the appellant in the Gali. The respondent disputed the averments of the plaintiff/appellant. They also disputed the sale deed to be forged and fabricated and contended further that the controversy in dispute has already been resolved by the decree dated 16.8.1977 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar in case titled as 'Gobind Singh v. Pal Singh'. This pertained to a suit for mandatory injunction which was preferred against Pal Singh, the original owner and he was directed to close the opening at Mark D in wall AB and also to fill up the pit Mark C as shown in the site plan and since the appellant had purchased the property from Pal Singh, he was bound by the decree which had been passed against Pal Singh in the year 1977. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties?OPD 5. Relief. The learned trial Court as also the first Appellate Court upheld the plea of the respondents and concluded that the decree R.S.A. No. 2523 of 2007 (O&M) -3- which was passed against Pal Singh was binding upon the appellant as he was the subsequent purchaser and also that the dispute regarding the Gali and the alleged encroachment thereon had been settled and that the appellant was precluded from raising the dispute any further. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the aforesaid findings in the present appeal to contend that the same are perverse and warrant interference. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Both the Courts have concluded that in the suit for mandatory injunction preferred against Pal Singh by Gobind Singh, father of one of the present respondents, the matter had been concluded in the year 1977 and that Pal Singh had been directed to fill up the pit which was reflected as Mark C and also to close the opening at Mark D in the wall AB and that the decree has since been honoured and that the appellant who had purchased the property from Pal Singh was therefore bound by the effect and impact of the decree which was passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. The findings of the Courts below cannot be termed to be perverse in any manner. Besides, pure findings of facts have been recorded. No substantial question of law is shown to have arisen in the present appeal which is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed. 3.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss