RSA No.4063 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.4063 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 18 th APRIL, 2011 Mam Raj & others .... Appellants Versus Paramjit Singh .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. M. K. Singla, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiffs who were successful in the trial court but have been non- suited by the lower appellate court have filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that they are in established possession of the suit land. Its possession was delivered to them by Kirpal Singh father of defendant-respondent Paramjit Singh vide receipt dated 13.05.1981 on receiving Rs.16,000/- from the plaintiffs. Accordingly plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land and from dispossessing them therefrom and from obstructing the construction work being done by the plaintiffs in the suit land measuring 2 bighas being part of Khasra No.622. Defendant broadly controverted the plaint allegations and pleaded that he is owner in possession of Khasra No.622 measuring 2 bighas 11 biswas. Execution of receipt dated 13.05.1981 by Kirpal Singh was denied. It was also RSA No.4063 of 2009 (O&M) -2- denied that Kirpal Singh delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs. It was also alleged that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2007 decreed the plaintiffs' suit restraining the defendant from interfering in plaintiffs' possession over the suit property and from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom by obstructing their construction work or otherwise except in due course of law. However, first appeal preferred by the defendant has been allowed by learned District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2009 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiffs stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Plaintiffs' sole reliance is on receipt dated 13.05.1981 Exhibit P-2, allegedly executed by Kirpal Singh. However, the said receipt has been rightly held by the lower appellate court to be forged and fabricated. Kirpal Singh died in 1989-90 and inheritance mutation No.1393 of Kirpal Singh was sanctioned on 28.04.1990. However, said inheritance mutation No.1393 has been mentioned in receipt dated 13.05.1981 Exhibit P-2, allegedly executed by Kirpal Singh. It is not explained by the plaintiffs as to how aforesaid inheritance mutation of Kirpal Singh could be mentioned in the receipt allegedly executed by Kirpal Singh himself during his lifetime. It is thus manifest that this receipt has been fabricated by the plaintiffs. The aforesaid conclusion finds further support from the testimony of Kaka Ram plaintiff No.3, while appearing in the witness box as PW-4. He has stated that aforesaid Exhibit P-2 was written after the death of RSA No.4063 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Kirpal Singh. This statement of Kaka Ram-plaintiff No.3 himself leaves no room for doubt that receipt Exhibit P-2 is forged and fabricated document. In addition to the aforesaid, Kaka Ram-plaintiff No.3 also admitted in his cross-examination that legal heirs of Kirpal Singh are owners as well as in possession of the suit property. In view of this categorical admission of plaintiff No.3 himself in the witness box, nothing remains to be adjudicated upon in the instant lis. This categorical admission made by plaintiff No.3 proves that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. It may be added that receipt dated 13.05.1981 Exhibit P-2 is not on stamp paper not it is registered one. It purports to be sale deed or agreement but being un-stamped and unregistered, cannot be used as evidence. It cannot be used even for collateral purpose because it does not recite specifically that possession of the suit land has been delivered to the plaintiffs. In addition to the aforesaid, it is mentioned in receipt Exhibit P-2 that plaintiffs can get registered sale deed executed from Kirpal Singh or his heirs as and when the plaintiffs desire. However, plaintiffs never sought the relief of execution of the sale deed pursuant to the aforesaid receipt. Consequently suit for injunction alone is also not maintainable. Even otherwise the plaintiffs being neither in possession nor owners in the suit property, suit for injunction alone is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants laid great emphasis on report of the Local Commissioner. However report of the Local Commissioner cannot prove that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land. It appears that some temporary rooms have been constructed hurriedly by the plaintiffs in the suit land just before filing of the suit and they were trying to raise some further construction but the defendant objected to the same and RSA No.4063 of 2009 (O&M) -4- therefore, the plaintiffs filed the instant suit. Some construction depicted by the Local Commissioner therefore would not prove that plaintiffs are in established possession of the suit land. Some hurriedly construction raised immediately before the filing of the suit would not entitle the plaintiffs to seek injunction against the defendant who is owner co-sharer in the suit land being one of the heirs of Kirpal Singh. On the other hand, testimony of plaintiff No.3 himself depicts that plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. In view of receipt Exhibit P-2 being forged one, which is the sole basis of claim of the plaintiffs, they are not entitled to the relief of injunction on this ground as well. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 18th April, 2011 'raj'