RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:09.08.2010. Om Parkash and others ...Appellants Versus Kamlesh Kumari ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Plaintiff is in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which his suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of property/house bearing No.117/7 (Quarter No.7 of Bungalow No.117 also known as portion `Y' of Bungalow No.117) Alexandra Road, Ambala Cantt. and also for possession of the suit property with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling, alienating, damaging, demolishing, reconstructing or changing the shape/structure of the property in dispute, has been dismissed. In this case, both the Courts below have held that the RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - ****** plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the property in dispute. The findings of fact recorded in this regard by the learned First Appellate Court are as under: - “9. The next question which would arise for determination is whether the appellant had been successful in proving his title over the suit property. The relief claimed in the present suit is with respect to property No.117/7 also known as portion Y of kothi No.117, Alexandra Road, Ambala Cantt. The contention of the appellant is that the property has been purchased by him from its previous owner namely Swadesh Kapoor widow of late Prithvish Chand Kapoor, as well as Kuldip Chand Kapoor and Subhash Chand Kapoor. In order to prove this assertion the appellant placed on record certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P1. The respondents have assailed the sale deed that no witness has been examined to prove the sale deed but this court is of the view that the registered copy of a sale deed is admissible in evidence in view of section 65(f) of the Evidence Act read with section 57(5) of the Registration Act. The RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - ****** findings of this court are based on the judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Saidali as reported in 1999(Suppl.) CCC 217. This court is also of the view that except in a case of will it is not necessary to call a attesting witness to prove the registered document unless execution has been specifically denied by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. The respondent in the present case is not a party to the sale deed and has got no locus standi to challenge the sale deed and thus this court is of the view that the sale deed Ex.P1 has been duly proved on record. 10. The next question which would arise is whether the appellant had been successful in connecting the sale deed with the property in dispute. The perusal of the sale deed Ex.P1 reveals that vide this sale deed property No.117/7 was purchased by the appellant for a sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- from Swadesh Kapoor. The learned trial court has rightly held that it was incumbent upon the RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 - ****** appellant to prove if Swadesh Kapoor was owner of the property in question and thus passed a valid title in favour of the respondents. In order to prove this factum the appellant has placed on record a copies of conveyance deeds Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B which relate to the free hold property which are sold otherwise than by public auction. Vide these conveyance deeds Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B property No.117/2 (portion) Alexandra road has been sold in favour of respondent Kuldeep Chand, Prithvish Chand and Subhash Chand sons of Kishan Chand. The executant of the sale deed Ex.P1 claims herself to be widow of Prithvish Chand Kapoor son of Krishan Chand. No proof has been given that Prithvish Chand has expired or who were his legal representatives, if he had died. Similarly the conveyance deed pertains to property No.117/2, Alexandra road, Ambala Cantt. whereas the sale deed has been executed with respect to property No.117/7. No link evidence has been led on the record RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 5 - ****** of the case to show or prove as to how Swadesh Kapoor became owner of property No.117/7 which property was not even held by her husband as her husband had purchased property No.117/2 only. The boundaries given in the conveyance deeds Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B do not tally with the boundaries given in the sale deed Ex.P1. Otherwise also Ex.DW1/B copy of the judgment passed by the court of Sh. B.R.Vohra the then learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala, clinches the entire issue in the present case. The learned Judge in para no.15 of the judgment delivered on 15.11.88 held that the number of the property transferred to Kuldip Chand, Prithvish Chand and Subhash Chand was No.117/2, Alexandra Road, Ambala Cantt. and there is no material on the record to show that Prithvish Chand was ever made owner of property No.117/7. As far as the controversy in the present case is concerned the facts remain the same and no evidence has been led to show as to at what stage of the case RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 6 - ****** Prithvish Chand Kapoor became owner of property No.117/7 especially when conveyance deed Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B relate to property No.117/2. The appellant has thus miserably failed to prove that the suit property was his ownership and accordingly issue No.1 is decided against the appellants and the findings of the learned trial court are modified to the extent discussed above.” Learned counsel for the appellants is at pains to argue that the plaintiff had purchased property No.117/7 from its owner Swadesh Kapoor but from the perusal of the record I could not find any document of title on record in favour of Swadesh Kapoor in respect of property No.117/7. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to connect the property in dispute on the basis of an entry with regard to portion 'Y' in the name of his vendor Swadesh Kapoor, but again there is no evidence on record that Swadesh Kapoor had ever been allotted property No.117/7, rather the documents available on record show that Swadesh Kapoor was allotted property No.117/2 and not 117/7. In view of the pure finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, I do not find any error in the judgment and decree of the Courts below. As a matter of fact, no substantial question of law RSA No.852 of 2008 (O&M) - 7 - ****** has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant except for challenging the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below on the basis of re-appreciation of evidence in which he has been miserably failed. Thus, the present appeal is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. August 09, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE