RSA-955-2015 (O&M) [119] Amar Singh through his Manish and Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] decree pass [2] in the Civil [3] interfering measuring kanals 03 m Shiv Dei vi &M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGAR RSA-955- Date of De r Singh Yadav (now deceased) gh his LRs versus ish and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocat Mr. Kewal Krishan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Manoj K. Sood, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff(s) are in second app e passed by the Courts below. Parties are hereinafter referred e Civil Suit i.e. appellants as plaintiffs Suit was filed by the plain fering into their peaceful possession ing 60 sq. yards forming part of j ls 03 marlas from one Ram Pal, acting Dei vide sale deed dated 18.05.1990. OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH -2015(O&M) of Decision : 05.02.2025 …Appellants ….Respondents PANKAJ JAIN dvocate with ocate vocate nd appeal, aggrieved of judgment an ferred to by their original position(s) a intiffs and respondents as defendants. plaintiff restraining defendants fro ssion, claiming that he purchased lan rt of joint khewat, total measuring 6 ting as Attorney of Jasrath and Sm 1990. 1 ent and on(s) as ants. ts from ed land ring 65 nd Smt. RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.02.07 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-955-2015 (O&M) [4] constructio to the plain as ‘AFED’ 18.12.2003 Dei for a co over 13 sq. Amar Singh [5] wife of de admeasurin 02.07.2008 procured fi [6] the followin &M) Plaintiffs claimed to have truction over the portion marked as ‘A e plaint. It was further claimed that lan FED’ was under his possession by .2003 executed by Ram Pal, Attorney or a consideration of Rs.17,000/-. Bo 13 sq. yards land. Plaintiffs claimed l r Singh Yadav. Suit was contested by the defe of defendant No.2 is an absolute asuring 72 sq. yards purchased by he .2008. The same is adjacent to the p fictitious agreement with respect t On the basis of the pleadings, ollowing issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiffs i measuring 173 Sq. yds. of the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is injunction as prayed for 3. Whether the suit is no OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff h present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff i conduct from filing the p 6. Relief.” have constructed and complete as ‘ADGH’ in the site plan as attache that land measuring 13 sq. yards marke on by way of agreement to sell date ttorney holder of Jasrath and Smt. Sh Boundary wall has been constructe imed land being legal heirs of deceas e defendants, claiming that Suman De solute owner in possession of a pl by her vide registered sale deed date the plot of plaintiff(s). Plaintiff(s) ha spect to 13 sq. yards land. dings, Court of the first instance frame iffs is owner in possession over lan yds. described in Para No.1, 2 and ff is entitled to a decree of permane d for ? OPP s not maintainable in present form tiff has no cause of action file th tiff is stopped by his own act an the present suit ? OPD 2 mpleted attached marked ll dated t. Shiv structed eceased an Devi a plot d dated ff(s) has framed r land and 3 anent form? le the t and RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.02.07 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-955-2015 (O&M) [7] conclusion described i PW-2/Ram parties to th one plot me PW-2/Ram plaintiff(s) Amar Sing Ram Pal an the said iss able to pro 3/1), nor a dismissed t [8] Court. [9] impugned there is a p below ough [10] there is no possession thus, instan &M) While returning findings, Cou lusion that the boundaries of plot ribed in sale deed (Ex.P-3/1). To pro 2/Ram Pal, who is power of attorney es to the suit and Ram Saroop from w lot measuring 60 sq. yards vide sale d 2/Ram Pal deposed that he had sold 6 tiff(s) vide sale deed dated 11.09.1990 r Singh. However, agreement to sell Pal and no effort was made by plaintif aid issue. Resultantly, the Court fou to prove sale deed (Ex. P-3) but coul nor agreement to sell (Ex. P-5). issed the suit filed by the plaintiff(s). The aforesaid findings stand a Learned counsel for the a gned judgment and decree passed by is a presumption in favour of the r ought not have disbelieved Exhibit P Per contra, Mr. Sood, counsel is no evidence on record to show ession of a specific portion of land p instant suit filed by the plaintiff(s) s, Court of the first instance came to th plot sold to plaintiff have not bee To prove sale deed, plaintiff examine orney holder of the vendors of both th rom whom plaintiff allegedly purchase sale deed dated 04.10.1996 (Ex. P-3/1 sold 60 sq. yards of land in favour o 9.1990 and possession was delivered to sell qua 13 sq. yards was denied b plaintiff(s) to cross-examine Ram Pal o urt found that though plaintiff(s) w ut could neither prove sale deed (Ex.P 5). Resultantly, the Courts belo ff(s). stand affirmed by the Lower Appella the appellants, while assailing th sed by the Courts below submits th the registered sale deed. The Cour hibit P-3/1 to non-suit the plaintiff(s). ounsel for respondent No.2 submits th show that the plaintiff(s) was put land pursuant to sale deed (Ex.P-3/1 tiff(s), seeking decree of permanent 3 to the ot been xamined both the rchased 3/1). vour of vered to nied by Pal on were d (Ex.P- s below ppellate ing the its that Courts iff(s). its that put in 3/1), anent RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.02.07 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-955-2015 (O&M) injunction relies upon 224. [11] through rec [12] matter of subject-mat concurrent favour of h by sale dee plot has b concerned, only as a s There is no was in poss plaintiff(s). [13] in the prese clarified th (Ex.P-3/1). the same ev (Ex.D-2). &M) ction was not maintainable. In orde s upon ‘Ramdas versus Sitabai and I have heard counsel for the gh records of the case. The dispute in the instant suit er of sale deed dated 04.10.1996 (E matter of agreement to sell (Ex.P urrent finding of fact that the defenda ur of his wife, executed by Gangotri Pa le deed (Ex.D-1) by none else, but t has been sold by boundaries. So erned, there is no boundary mentioned as a share out of a joint khewat ad e is no evidence on record to suggest in possession of a specific portion of l tiff(s). In view thereof, this Court doe e present appeal, the same is ordered fied that the findings relate to plot, wh 3/1). So far as plot subject-matter of ame even finds mention in the sale de 2). n order to support his contentions, h i and others’, reported as 2009(8) J or the parties and have carefully gon nt suit relates to plot, which is subjec 96 (Ex.P-3/1) and the land which (Ex.P-5). Courts below have returne efendants proved sale deed (Ex.D-2) otri Parshad, to whom the plot was so but the vendors of Ram Saroop. Th . So far as sale deed (Ex.P-3/1) ntioned and the plot has been describe at ad-measuring more than 65 kanal ggest that the vendor of the plaintiff( on of land, which he handed over to th urt does not find any reason to interfe ered to be dismissed. However, it lot, which is subject-matter of sale dee atter of sale deed (Ex.P-3) is concerne ale deed propounded by the defendan 4 ions, he (8) JT lly gone subject- hich is returned 2) in as sold p. The 3/1) is escribed kanals. intiff(s) er to the interfere er, it is ale deed ncerned, fendants RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.02.07 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-955-2015 (O&M) [14] disposed of 05.02.2025 ‘R. Sharma' &M) All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2025 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 5 stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2025.02.07 18:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document