Mohindsr Kumar and Another vs Daulat Ram and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is Plaintiffs'' second appeal whose suit for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant-respondent from taking forcible possession of the suit land has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

The Plaintiffs filed the suit on the allegations that earlier Daljit Singh, Sham Singh sons of Gurdial Singh and other six persons, were owners of the suit land, vide mutation No. 5351 measuring 5 kanals 7 Marias. The Plaintiffs purchased 1/4th share of Sham Singh and Daljit Singh vendors out of the total land, measuring 5 Kanals 7 Marias, vide registered sale deed dated 6-12-1971 and, thus they have become owners in possession thereof. Since Defendants 1 and 2 wanted to forcibly dispossess the Plaintiffs, hence, the present suit.

The suit was resisted on the ground that the Plaintiffs were not the owners in possession of the land in question and on the other hand, the answering Respondents were in possession thereof as tenants under oae Jamaa Devi wife of Dhana Ram who purchased the plot in question from Dhana Singh by means of a registered sale deed dated 23.8.1965 for Rs. 700/.

The learned trial Court found that Smt. Jamna Devi is the owner of the suit land and she came to possession the same on the date of sale in her favour. It was further found that the Defendants were in possession of the suit land as tenants under Smt. Jamna Devi. In view of these findings, the Plaintiffs'' suit was dismissed. In appeal, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge with Enhanced Appellate Powers, Hissar, affirmed the said findings of the trial Court and thus, maintained the decree, dismissing the Plaintiff''s suit. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff''s have come up in second appeal to this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that an application for additional evidence was filed before the lower appellate Court, but no orders were passed thereon. It was further contended that in any case from the mutation sanctioned in favour of the Plaintiffs on the basis of the sale deed dated December 6, 1971, it was proved that they were the owners of the suit land and thus, the findings of the Courts below are wrong in that behalf.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal.

From the file of the lower appellate Court, it appears that an application for additional evidence was moved on behalf of the Appellants, but was never pursued and no orders were obtained by them on the same. In any case, no such application was made in this Court for producing additional evidence. Admittedly, the plaintiffs did not produce the sale deed which was executed in their favour. Thus in the absence of the said document, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove themselves to be the co-owners of the land in question. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the Courts below as to be interfered with in second appeal Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.