Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2214 (PNJ)

Baldev Singh v. All Saint Convent School, Ajnala

2011-12-14

RAM CHAND GUPTA

body2011
JUDGMENT Ram Chand Gupta, J 1. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.05.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 8.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala dismissing the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including both the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. 3. Briefly stated, present appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of the land in dispute on the plea that Charan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of present appellants-plaintiffs was exclusive owner of entire land and that respondents-defendants are alleged to have purchased the land in dispute from Charan Singh as well as Balbir Singh, whereas Balbir Singh was not owner of the land in dispute and Charan Singh was owner of the entire land and hence, it is contended that Balbir Singh was not competent to execute the sale deed. 4. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants contested the suit on the ground that they have been continuing in possession as owners since the execution of the sale deed in their favour by Balbir Singh and Charan Singh i.e. since the year 1957. As both of them were recorded as owners in the revenue record, and hence, they are transferee for consideration and have been continuing in possession as owners. Plea has also been taken that sale deed was signed by both Balbir Singh as well as Charan Singh through whom the plaintiffs are claiming right in the land in dispute. 5. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by them was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that both the Courts below have committed illegality in dismissing the suit on the ground that the same is barred by limitation, whereas there is no limitation prescribed for a suit for possession on the basis of title. It has been contended that there was an exchange between Charan Singh and Balbir Singh and that by way of exchange, Balbir Singh relinquished his right in the property in dispute in favour of Charan Singh. 7. It has been contended that there was an exchange between Charan Singh and Balbir Singh and that by way of exchange, Balbir Singh relinquished his right in the property in dispute in favour of Charan Singh. 7. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for respondents-defendants that even Charan Singh through whom the present appellants-plaintiffs are claiming right in the property in dispute, is signatory to the sale deed and hence, it is contended that whatever right Charan Singh was having in the property in dispute, the same was sold in favour of respondents-defendants vide the said sale deed. It has also been contended that a Church was constructed after purchasing the same and a school was also being run in the said premises. 8. It has not been specifically pleaded by present appellants-plaintiffs that there was any alleged exchange between Charan Singh and Balbir Singh and in the said exchange all the rights in the property in dispute were relinquished by Balbir Singh in favour of Charan Singh. No such exchange has been proved as per law. Morevoer, Charan singh is signatory to the sale deed. Execution of sale deed by Charan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of present appellants-plaintiffs in favour of respondents-defendants is not disputed. Hence, whatever right Charan Singh was having in the property in dispute, the same were sold in favour of respondents-defendants. 9. It may also be mentioned here that an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been filed by present appellants-plaintiffs for placing on the record the copy of jamabandi for the year 1944-45 and mutations No.509 and 512 in order to prove the said alleged exchange. However, though no case for producing these documents is made out at this stage, and however, even if the same are considered, there are no subsequent entries in the revenue record regarding the said alleged exchange. The respondents-defendants are bona fide purchasers for consideration in view of entries of ownership in the revenue record on the date of sale and hence, the said application is also not a bona fide one and the same is also dismissed. 10. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. 10. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. Appeal dismissed.