R.S.A.No. 164 of 1988 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 164 of 1988 Date of decision: 18.1.2011 Som Nath and another ......Appellants Versus Hari Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.N.Moudgil, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Hemant Sarin, Advocate for respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction that defendant No.1 be restrained from alienating the building in dispute to defendant No.2 or anyone else. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that Satyawati was the owner of the building in dispute and had sold the same to the plaintiffs on 1.10.1982 for a consideration of ` 12,000/-. Plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.1, in his written statement, admitted that Satyawati was co-owner of the suit property. Defendant No.1 was owner to the extent of half share in the suit property. The sale deed executed by Satyawati was illegal, null and void as she had no right R.S.A.No. 164 of 1988 2 to sell the share of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 in his written statement averred that he had purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 8.10.1982. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property in pursuance of a purchase effected by them from Satyawati widow of Dharam Singh on 1.10.1982 for a consideration of ` 12,000/- ? OPP. 2. Whether Hari Singh defendant is the son of Dharam Singh deceased, If so, its effect OPD 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for ? OPP 4. Relief. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28.8.1984 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction and restrained defendant No.1 from alienating the building in dispute to defendant No.2 or anyone else. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed by Additional District Judge, Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.1987 on the ground that the suit had been rendered infructuous. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. R.S.A.No. 164 of 1988 3 Plaintiffs had sought relief of permanent injunction that defendant No.1 be restrained from alienating the suit property in favour of defendant No.2 or anybody else. However, defendant No.1 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 8.10.1982 which was registered after the filing of the suit. In these circumstances, the relief of permanent injunction could not have been granted to the plaintiffs as the sale deed had already been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs could have challenged the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2. The suit filed by the plaintiffs had been rendered infructuous. The apprehension of learned counsel for the appellants that the findings given by the trial Court would adversely affect the parties is without any basis as the suit has been dismissed being infructuous and hence, the findings recorded by the trial Court have lost their meaning. Learned Additional District Judge had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as having been rendered infructuous. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 18, 2011 anita