JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for possession and directed the defendants to vacate the shop in question within a period of two months vide judgment and decree dated 2.2.2008. Plaintiff was also held entitled for mesne profits. Appeal filed by the defendants against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was owner of the suit property. The shop was owned and possessed by Rajinder Kumar and it was allotted to him by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board on 21.9.1981. Thereafter, an application was moved by Rajinder Kumar for transfer of the property in dispute in the name of the plaintiff on 27.6.1996. Consequently, the property in dispute was transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Defendants had no concern with the suit property. Defendants, however, filed two suits for permanent injunction, one against Rajinder Kumar and another against the plaintiff. The Civil Court restrained Rajinder Kumar from dispossessing the defendants from the suit property without following due course of law. Plaintiff was also restrained from dispossessing the defendants from the suit land except in due course of law in the suit filed against the plaintiff. In the said suit defendant No.1 alleged that Rajinder Kumar had filed two rent petitions against him and the relationship of landlord and tenant was denied. The shop was given to Kanta Rani in July 1988. The plaintiff was a bonafide purchaser for consideration. The defendants were trespassers and were liable to vacate the suit property. 3. Defendants in their written statement denied the contentions in the plaint. It was averred that the transfer deed in favour of the plaintiff was illegal, null and void. The market committee had no concern with the suit property and hence could not execute the transfer deed dated 17.12.1999 in favour of the plaintiff. The shop in dispute was owned by defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 was running his business of commission agent in the shop in dispute. Defendant No.2 was in possession of the shop in dispute since July 1988. A sum of Rs.1,66,245/- had been deposited with Rajinder Kumar. The shop in dispute was owned by defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 was running his business of commission agent in the shop in dispute. Defendant No.2 was in possession of the shop in dispute since July 1988. A sum of Rs.1,66,245/- had been deposited with Rajinder Kumar. Since Rajinder Kumar had failed to return the said amount, the suit property was given to defendant No.2 in a family settlement which took place in the year 1988. Rajinder Kumar was real brother of defendant No.2. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of suit shop as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether possession of defendant over the suit property is illegal and unauthorized and the plaintiff is entitled to get the possession of the suit property OPP 3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month, amounting to Rs.22,400/- ie. w.e.f. 29.7.1996 to 28.3.1997 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum i.e. Rs.2,000/- and further interest of Rs.2,400/- with respect to suit property from the defendants. 4.Whether suit is not maintainable in its present form ? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 6. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 7. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction as alleged? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct, as alleged? OPD 9. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and cause of action ? OPD 10. Whether defendants are entitled to special cost under Section 35-A CPC and 95 CPC? OPD 11. Relief.” 5. After hearing learned senior counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. 6. Admittedly, Rajinder Kumar was owner of the property in dispute. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the shop in dispute from Rajinder Kumar and a transfer deed was executed in his favour by the market committee, whereas, the case of the defendants is that the suit property had come to defendant No.2 in a family settlement. 7. The case of the plaintiff was that he had purchased the shop in dispute from Rajinder Kumar and a transfer deed was executed in his favour by the market committee, whereas, the case of the defendants is that the suit property had come to defendant No.2 in a family settlement. 7. The family settlement could have taken place in case defendant No.2 had some existing right in the suit property. Since the suit property was owned by Rajinder Kumar, there was no question of any family settlement between Rajinder Kumar and defendant No.2. Rajinder Kumar, on the other hand, denied the factum of family settlement while appearing in the witness box. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has purchased the suit property and in these circumstances, he was liable to get the possession of the property in dispute. The Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. 8. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. -----------0.K.B.0------------