Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1318 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh s/o Gian Singh v. Balwinder Kaur

2009-08-04

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
JUDGMENT SHAM SUNDER, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 08.09.1998, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, and the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kapurthala, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. The plaintiff claimed that the agreements to sell dated 26.06.1977 for 3 marlas of land by Sant Kaur and dated 21.04.1978, by Karam Singh, were executed in his favour. An agreement to sell dated 21.04.1978, in respect of 3 marlas of land was executed in favour of Gian Singh father of the plaintiff by Jaswant Kaur. The plaintiff came into possession of the property, in dispute, on the basis of the agreements aforesaid and raised construction thereon. It was stated that the defendants had no concern with the land, but tried to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom, forcibly. On their final refusal to desist from their illegal designs, left with no alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. 3. Inder Singh, defendant (since deceased) and represented by the legal representatives filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was denied that the plaintiff, was in possession of the suit property. It was stated that rather he was in possession of the suit property, on the basis of sale deeds dated 07.01.1987, and 27.03.1996, vide which, he purchased the land, bearing khasra Nos. 317//22/0-2 and 317/9/0-3 respectively from Karam Singh son of Swaran Singh. It was further stated that the plaintiff, had no concern with the suit property. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? OPP (iii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/appellant, which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/appellant, which was also dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kapurthala, vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2003. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, submitted that, as per the agreements P1, P2, and P3, executed in the year 1977-78, the plaintiff/appellant, was in possession of the land, in dispute. He further submitted that the Courts below, were, thus, required to protect the possession of the plaintiff/appellant, in respect of the property. He further submitted that no suit for specific performance, on the basis of agreements to sell, referred to above, was filed. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that the agreements P1, P2 and P3, were never executed, in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. He further submitted that, even if, it was assumed, that the agreements, were ever executed, the same had become irrelevant, as the plaintiff/appellant, had never filed a suit for specific performance for the enforcement of the same, for the last 20 years. He further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant, did not come into possession of the property, in dispute, at any point of time. He further submitted that the property in dispute was purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents vide sale deed D1 and D2, and he came into possession thereof. After his death the respondents came into possession thereof as owners. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The plaintiff/appellant, claimed his possession, on the basis of the agreements to sell P1 to P3, for the years 1977-78. The agreements to sell, could not confer any right of ownership, on the plaintiff/appellant. No suit, was filed, by the plaintiff/appellant, to enforce the agreements, by seeking specific performance thereof. No doubt, in the agreements to sell, it was recorded, that the plaintiff/appellant, was put in possession of the property, in dispute. However, in case, the plaintiff/appellant, was in possession of the property, in dispute, the same would have certainly been reflected, in the revenue record. No revenue record, was produced by the plaintiff/appellant, to show, that he came into possession of the property, in dispute, on the basis of the agreements to sell, referred to above. Not only this, even sale deeds D1 and D2, were executed, in respect of the property, in dispute, by the original owner in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and he became the owner in possession thereof, and after his death the respondents became the owners in possession. Not only this, even sale deeds D1 and D2, were executed, in respect of the property, in dispute, by the original owner in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and he became the owner in possession thereof, and after his death the respondents became the owners in possession. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, that the plaintiff/appellant, did come into possession of the property, in dispute, on the basis of the agreements to sell, referred to above; that he never filed a suit for specific performance, on the basis thereof, though the same related to the year 1977-78; that the agreements to sell P1 to P3, after such a long time, had become unenforceable at law; that the sale deeds D1 and D2, in respect of the property, in dispute, were executed in favour of Inder Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who became owner in possession of the same and after his death the respondents became the owners in possession; and that the plaintiff/appellant, was not entitled to the injunction prayed for, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, are neither illegal, nor perverse and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.