RSA No.3933 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3933 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 3.12.2008 Harbhajan Singh ......Appellant Versus Amrik Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby appeal filed by the respondent/defendants has been accepted and judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside which has resulted into dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be in possession of the suit land as owner on the basis of sale deed dated 10.12.2003 executed by his father for a consideration of Rs.3 lacs who delivered him actual and physical possession thereof on the date of execution of the sale deed and has sought injunction against the defendant-respondents who were threatening to make construction over his peaceful possession. Upon notice, the defendants appeared and filed written statement taking legal objections and stating that the plaintiff has not disclosed the fact of passing of one arbitration award between Banta Singh and defendants No.1 to 3 and others wherein Banta Singh admitted possession of defendants over the property in dispute. Defendants No.1 to RSA No.3933 of 2008(O&M) 2 3 have constructed their houses over the suit property. It is further alleged that previously one suit filed by Banta Singh against defendants No.2 and 3 was later on dismissed as withdrawn. On merits, it was admitted that originally, Banta Singh was owner in respect of the suit property but it was alleged that Banta Singh transferred the suit property by way of arbitral award on 29.5.2002. It was further alleged that the sale deed produced by the plaintiff is a sham transaction and the same is without consideration as Banta Singh was not survived with any right, title or interest with respect to the suit property after passing of the aforesaid award and defendants No.1 and 2 are in actual physical possession over the suit property. It was further alleged that the land measuring 6 kanals, out of the suit property, is “Gair Mumkin Abadi” but in the above said sale deed, the plaintiff described the same as vacant land contrary to the revenue record. Remaining averments of the plaint were denied and it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed. After hearing both the sides, the trial Court decided all the issues against the defendants and decreed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.1.2008. Aggrieved therefrom, the defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the District Judge, Amritsar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 7.8.2008. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court held that the appellant claimed himself to be in possession of the suit land as owner on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-2. However, the revenue authorities vide Ex.D-3 refused to make entry of mutation in favour of the appellant on the basis of said sale deed as the revenue authorities is concluded that the appellant was not in possession of the suit land. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal. RSA No.3933 of 2008(O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. During the course of arguments, it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellant that matter with regard to mutation on the basis of sale deed Ex.P-2 is still pending before the revenue authorities and has not been decided so far. The Lower Appellate Court on reappreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant is not in possession of the suit land. Whether the appellant is in possession or not is a question of fact which has been answered by the Lower Appellate Court against the appellant. Admittedly vide Ex. D3, the Revenue Authorities have refused to mutate the sale in his favour allegedly executed by his father on the ground that he is not in possession. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. December 3, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE