R.S.A. No.996 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.996 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:08.07.2011 Gurpreet Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus Kamlesh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellants. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this appeal and emanating from the record, is that the suit filed by Kamlesh wife of Balwant Ram, also mentioned as Balwinder Ram(defendant No.4)-respondent No.1-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) for declaration against Joginder Singh-defendant, since deceased(now being represented through his LRs)- appellants and proforma respondent Nos.2 to 4-defendants(for brevity “the defendants”), in respect of the land in dispute, was decreed by the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007. The appeal filed by them (defendants) was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010. 2. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal in this regard. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter R.S.A. No.996 of 2011 2 deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal. 4. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the appellant- defendants have purchased the suit land vide registered sale-deed dated 26.12.1983, so, the Courts below fell in error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 5. As is evident from the record that defendant No.4 was the owner and he sold the land in dispute to the plaintiff vide sale-deed dated 05.08.1977(Ex.P2). The stand pleaded by the defendants that they became owner of the land in question as per sale-deed dated 26.12.1983, executed in their favour by defendant No.4, cannot possibly be believed. On the contrary, the plaintiff has produced on record oral as well as the documentary evidence, in order to substantiate her case that she purchased the land in dispute vide sale-deed(Ex.P2), but the defendants did not produce any evidence, in order to rebut the same. Therefore, it stands proved on record that defendant No.4 had already sold the land in dispute to the plaintiff by way of sale-deed dated 05.08.1977(Ex.P2). Once, defendant No.4 had already sold the land to the plaintiff by virtue of sale-deed(Ex.P2) then he is not left with any right, much less alienable in the land in dispute. Therefore, the subsequent sale-deed dated 26.12.1983 in favour of the appellants, is not only illegal, null and void, but inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff as well. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant- defendants “stricto-sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 6. Moreover, the trial Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire un-rebutted relevant evidence brought on record by the plaintiff in the right perspective and has correctly decreed her(plaintiff) suit, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.11.2007, the operative part of which is, as under:- “I have given my careful consideration to the evidence on the file coupled with submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Suit was filed by R.S.A. No.996 of 2011 3 the plaintiff through her attorney as well as mother, who has appeared as PW-1 and the copy of power of attorney is brought on the file as Ex.P1. Copy of sale deed Ex.P2 shows that the land measuring 20 kanal 17 marla owned by Balwant Ram was purchased by plaintiff Kamlesh. Her ownership is admitted by defendants No.1 to 3 as out of the same land, they have purchased share 5 kanal 14 marlas vide Ex.P4. This sale deed dated 10.10.1980 is not disputed by the answering defendants. The plaintiff has claimed that the sale deed dated 26.12.1983 of land measuring 8 kanal of 160/1829 share executed by Balwant Ram in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 is null and void as plaintiff has already purchased the land from Balwant Ram.” 7. Not only that, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were upheld by the first Appellate Court by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2010. 8. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant behalf. 9. Moreover, having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the above indicated concurrent finding of facts. Such pure concurrent finding of facts based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well-articulated decision arrived at by the Courts below, in this context. 10. Meaning thereby, the entire matter revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since, no question of law, much less substantial, is involved in this regular second appeal, in view of the law R.S.A. No.996 of 2011 4 laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another, 2008(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 688: 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. July 08, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE