RSA No.4140 of 2008(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4140 of 2008(O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2008 Shanti Devi Chawla ......Appellant Versus Krishan Lal and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.12350-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded in the application, delay of 128 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.4140 of 2008(O&M) The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant-Banarsi Dass(predecessor-in-interest of appellant) to vacate and deliver the possession of the portion of the house No.456 New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar as detailed in the head note of the suit, alleging therein that the plaintiffs allowed defendant No.1 to live in the portion of the house in question as a licensee. The defendants have got no right to retain the possession after termination of the license. Since the defendants were not quitting the possession, this necessitated the filing of the present suit. The suit was resisted by defendant No.1 pleading therein that RSA No.4140 of 2008(O&M) 2 there is no relationship of licensor and licensee between the parties and in fact, defendant No.1 was in possession of the property in dispute being proposed vendee of Kashmiri Lal (defendant No.2) who executed an agreement to sell dated 14.8.1983 in favour of the defendants and had put him in joint possession of the property in part performance of the agreement. The said sale deed could not be executed and the time for execution of the sale deed was extended upto 31.3.1993. It was also stated the the alleged sale deed dated 7.6.1985 in favour of plaintiff No.2 is a forged and fabricated document. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed. In separate written statement filed on behalf of Kashmiri Lal (defendant No.2) it was pleaded that sale deed dated 7.6.1985 in favour of plaintiff No.2 is a forged and fabricated document and defendant No.2 has executed agreement in favour of defendant No.1 in the property in dispute. Prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record and hearing the arguments of the parties, held that plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property and are entitled to recover the possession by way of mandatory injunction from defendant No.1 who was in permissive possession of the property as a licensee. It was also held that no title has been conferred upon defendant No.1 on the basis of agreement Ex.D1 dated 14.8.1983 in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. Still not satisfied, the appellants who are successors-in- interest of defendant No.1 Banarsi Dass have filed the present appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The defendant-appellant is claiming herself to be in possession of the suit property in part performance of agreement of sale RSA No.4140 of 2008(O&M) 3 dated 14.8.1983 in her favour by Kashmiri Lal-defendant. According to the defence taken up by the appellant, the sale deed was to be executed on or before 14.8.1984. However, the transaction could not be completed. The seller received further earnest money from the defendant on 2.2.1988 and extended the time for execution of the sale deed upto 31.12.1990 and thereafter, the time for execution of the sale deed was executed upto 31.1.1993. Thereafter, the defendant approached Kashmiri Lal several times but he did not execute the sale deed. The sale deed in favour of plaintiff No.2 dated 7.6.1985 was also denied being a forged and fabricated document. The Courts below held that the alleged agreement to sell dated 14.8.1983 Ex.D1 in favour of the appellant in appeal No.4140 of 2008 confers no title upon defendant No.1(appellant) whereas the title vests in favour of respondent No.2 (plaintiff No.2) on the basis of the sale deed dated 7.6.1985 and the remedy, if any, available with the appellant was to challenge the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 by filing a suit for specific performance but admittedly the appellant has not taken any such step to enforce his right or to enforce the specific performance of the alleged agreement Ex.D-1 and in these circumstances, the appellant cannot defend his possession over the property in dispute against the plaintiff-respondents when he himself has admitted in the suit that he has been in permissive possession of the property since 1974. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit property and as such they are entitled to recover the possession by way of mandatory injunction from the appellant who has been in permissive possession of the property as a licensee. No fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Courts below. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. RSA No.4140 of 2008(O&M) 4 No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. December 23, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE