Babu Ram vs Jag Ram and others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering in his ownership and possession over the disputed plot and further from dispossessing him forcibly or in any other manner. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant had purchased the disputed plot situated in Shahbad vide registered sale deed dated 27.3.1981 from one Ishar Singh son of Sondhi Ram. He claimed to be in possession of the said plot since the year 1977 that is the date of agreement to purchase in the capacity of a prospective vendee. Plaintiff-appellant, accordingly, claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property. He apprehended that the defendants, who had no right, title or interest in the suit property were wanting to take possession thereof forcibly. Accordingly, the suit for permanent injunction was instituted. Defendants filed a written statement stating that the plaintiff himself is the son of the alleged vendor namely Ishar Singh and further that Ishar Singh himself has no right, title or interest RSA No. 937 of 1989 -2-in the disputed plot and as such the plaintiff could not acquire a better title. The possession of the plaintiff was disputed and it was pleaded by defendant no.1 that in fact the possession of the disputed plot on his behalf was with his wife and son namely Nachattro Devi and Balbir Singh respectively. The positive stand taken by the defendants was that the disputed plot was lying vacant and belonged to Guru Ravi Dass Sabha and the aforementioned Sabha on 18.10.1977 executed two sale deeds in favour of Nachattro Devi and Balbir Singh as regards the disputed plot and the possession was also delivered to them through defendant no.1.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the plaintiff purchased on plot through valid sale deed 27.3.81 as described in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP

(2) Whether the boundaries of the plot given by the plaintiff are correct.? OPP.

(3) Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit plot since 1977, as alleged? OPP.

(4) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD

(5) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

(6) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

(7) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

(8) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct? OPD

(9) Relief.

The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Kurukshetra on 9.12.1986 by returning a finding that the plaintiff was RSA No. 937 of 1989 -3-neither the owner nor in possession of the disputed plot. Being dissatisfied the plaintiff filed an appeal and vide order dated 17.12.1987 the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra has dismissed the appeal. Resultantly, the second appeal before this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the courts below have ignored the fact that the appellant had purchased the plot in dispute vide a registered sale deed bearing no.4932 on 27.3.1981 from Ishar Singh and that the appellant has been in possession of the suit land since 1977 that is the date of agreement to purchase as a prospective vendee. Learned counsel further argued that both the courts below have grossly erred in not accepting the plea that Ishar Singh had got the plot in dispute by way of partition and had in turn sold the plot in dispute to the present appellant.

Having given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and having perused the pleadings as also the record, I hold that the present appeal cannot succeed. The appellant has claimed to have purchased the disputed plot from Ishar Singh and has placed reliance on a registered sale deed dated 27.3.1981 Ex.P-3. However, there a concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below that the title of the plaintiff-appellant''s vendor that is Ishar Singh has not come to be established. The plaintiff-appellant himself stated that there was a sale deed executed for consideration amount of Rs.99/-by Guru Ravi Dass Sabha in favour of Ishar Singh. Such sale deed which was a material document to prove the title of Ishar Singh was not even produced before the court. In a RSA No. 937 of 1989 -4-situation when the title of the plaintiff-appellant''s vendor is not established, there was no question of the appellant having derived any title in the suit property. It was also noticed by the courts below that the vendor Ishar Singh is none other but the plaintiff-appellant''s real father. This fact had also been concealed in the plaint and had not been disclosed expressly. As regards the possession of the suit property is concerned, Ishar Singh, father of the plaintiff-appellant had stated that a written agreement had been executed in the year 1977 in favour of plaintiff and possession had also been delivered at that point of time. However, there was no such recital in the sale deed Ex.P-3 as regards the agreement dated 17.3.1977. Even such alleged written agreement was withheld by the plaintiff-appellant and not produced before the Trial Court. Rather as per sale deed Ex.P-3 the possession of the suit property was delivered at the time of the sale deed. The case set up by the plaintiff-appellant was termed as wholly unreliable on account of such material contradictions and discrepancies.

Yet another glaring discrepancy that is discernible from the record is that the plaintiff-appellant stated that his father Ishar Singh got the disputed plot from Guru Ravi Dass Sabha by way of sale deed for Rs.99/-, whereas his father Ishar Singh, PW-2 stated otherwise to the effect that the disputed plot came to him by way of partition. The material contradiction was carried on further in as much as plaintiff-appellant specifically stated about the execution of the sale deed by Guru Ravi Dass Sabha in favour of Ishar Singh but the same was contradicted by Ishar Singh stating that no sale deed or other writing was executed in his favour by the Sabha regarding the alleged partition.

The concurrent finding of both the courts below is that the appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the disputed plot and that the sale deed dated 27.3.1981 does not confer any title on the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant has also been held to be not in possession of the suit property. While interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the courts below is confined only as regards the substantial questions of law. It has been held that the legislative intention was very clear and the Legislature never wanted a second appeal to become a "third trial on facts". For such proposition of law a reference is made to Madvan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10 SCC 533, Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh (2005) 12 SCC 270.

No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the present second appeal.

For the reasons recorded above, the instant second appeal being devoid of merit must fail and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.