IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 127 RSA-1334-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.04.2025 BIMLA ALIAS BIMLA RANI …..APPELLANT Vs. SEEMA RANI …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Kushaldeep Kaur, Advocate and Ms. Sharvi Dadhwal, Advocate for the appellant. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Suit for mandatory injuncon regarding shop in dispute filed by plainff-Seema Rani (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court on 05.08.2022. The appeal filed by the defendant-Bimla (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 26.11.2024. Against this concurrent findings, defendant has approached this Court. 2.1 Plainff brought the suit on the ground that she purchased the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 02.08.2016 for consideraon of ₹2,35,000/-. The sale deed was executed by defendant along with her mother-in-law and children. Although, it was spulated in the sale deed that possession was delivered, but in fact vendors had assured to deliver the possession on the next day, but later on possession was not delivered and defendant refused to deliver the possession. 2.2 Contesng the suit, defendant denied having executed the sale deed. 2.3 A4er framing necessary issues and taking evidence, trial Court found that sale deed was duly executed by the defendant-appellant along with her mother-in-law and children a4er receiving the enre sale PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1334-2025 (O&M) consideraon and the said sale deed was proved not only by the tesmony of the plainff, but also by one of the a6esng witness. Suit was accordingly decreed and the findings have been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. 3. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that in fact sale consideraon was not paid to the appellant-defendant, though so spulated in the sale deed. 4. In the wri6en statement, defendant had denied having executed the sale deed, contending that the same did not even bear her signature. Even in the evidence, as has been observed by the First Appellate Court, defendant-appellant-Bimla not only denied her signatures on the sale deed Ex-PW-3/A, but even denied her photograph affixed on the sale deed. The Appellate Court found that the statement of the defendant-appellant was not reliable at all, as she appeared to have entered the witness box having made up her mind to deny her signature on every documents, which was apparent from the fact that she denied her signatures even on the power of a6orney and the wri6en statement, which was filed in the present suit. Not only this, the execuon of the sale deed Ex.PW-3/A was duly proved by the tesmony of one of the a6esng witness is Rajpal, who had appeared in the witness box as PW-2. 5. Apart from above, the perusal of the sale deed, copy of which was shown by learned counsel for the appellant to this Court clearly reveals the acknowledgement of the vendors including the defendant-appellant to have received the enre sale consideraon of ₹2,35,000/-. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings of the fact as recorded by the Courts below, whereby it was held that defendant-appellant along with her mother-in-law and children had sold the suit property to plainff, but had not delivered the possession thereof. Consequently, suit has been rightly decreed for mandatory injuncon. PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1334-2025 (O&M) 7. As such, holding the present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. 28.04.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? Yes PRIYANKA 2025.04.29 13:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document