Maha Singh vs Ranbir and Another

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 12298.C of 2010

Allowed as prayed for.

CM No. 12299.C of 2010

Allowed as prayed for.

RSA No. 4094 of 2010

Maha Singh Plaintiff having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal.

The Plaintiff alleged that Pala Singh etc. were owners of the suit property. They exchanged it with a plot of proforma Respondent No. 2 Gopi

Ram. Thereafter Gopi Ram sold away the suit property to the Plaintiff vide agreement dated 27.6.2006 and received the entire sale consideration.

The Plaintiff became owner of the suit property. However, in the year 2008, Defendant No. 1 taking advantage of Plaintiff''s absence made

encroachment on suit portions of the suit property by raising construction thereon. Possession of Defendant No. 1 over the suit portions is illegal

and unauthorised. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing Defendant No. 1 to remove the said encroachment and construction.

The Plaintiff also sought relief of possession of the suit portions and also sought ancillary relief of injunction etc.

Proforma Defendant No. 2 admitted the claim of the Plaintiff.

Defendant No. 1 contested the suit and controverted the plaint allegations. Defendant No. 1 alleged that the suit house was owned and

possessed by Satpal son of Defendant No. 2 Gopi Ram. The Plaintiff or Defendant No. 2 had no right or claim over any part of the suit house.

Alleged agreement by Defendant No. 2 in favour of Plaintiff is false and inadmissible. The Plaintiff is not owner in possession of the suit house. On

the contrary, Defendant No. 1 is owner in possession thereof. There was also compromise dated 20.9.2006 when previously dispute arose

between Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. In that compromise also Plaintiff admitted ownership and possession of Defendant No. 1 over the disputed

portions. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Safidon vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.2009 dismissed the Plaintiff''s suit. First appeal

preferred by the Plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2010. Feeling

aggrieved, the Plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the suit property is abadi property and therefore, there can be no documentary

evidence regarding its ownership. It was also contended that Plaintiff-Appellant has purchased the suit property from Defendant No. 2 and has

become its owner. It was also contended that suit property is not part of the property allegedly purchased by Defendant No. 1 from the son of

Defendant No. 2.

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions but find no merit therein. The Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for possession of the suit

portions on the basis of title. However, even if the Plaintiff''s version is taken at its face value, the Plaintiff has not become owner of the suit

property. The Plaintiff claims its ownership on the basis of agreement dated 27.6.2006 having purchased it from Defendant No. 2 for ` 2,70,000/-.

Obviously, sale of immovable property for the said consideration could be effected only through registered sale deed and not through unregistered

agreement. Admittedly, there is no registered sale deed of the suit property even by Defendant No. 2 in favour of the Plaintiff. Consequently, on

the basis of alleged agreement only no title or ownership in the suit property passed to or vested in the Plaintiff. Consequently, the Plaintiff cannot

seek possession of the suit portions on the basis of agreement only because on the basis of agreement, the Plaintiff has not acquired ownership of

the suit portions.

There is also compromise dated 20.9.2006 which has been proved by Defendant No. 1. In view thereof also, the Plaintiff cannot succeed.

There is concurrent finding by both the courts below against the Plaintiff. The said finding is fully justified and is supported by cogent reasons. Even

Plaintiff''s own version taken at its face value is sufficient to non-suit the Plaintiff. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for

determination in the instant second appeal. The finding recorded by the courts below is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant

interference in second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.