JUDGMENT : - Sanjay Karol, Judge(Oral) Appellant Narinder Singh (defendant before the trial Court) has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal No.63/N/XIII/11/09, titled as Narinder Singh v. Angreg Singh and another, whereby judgment and decree dated 24.6.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.2, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.56/2000, titled as Angraz Singh v. Narinder Singh and another, stands affirmed. 2. Based on the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the sale deed vide document No.143, dated 04-02-2000 is null and void, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether sale deed document No.336 dated 23-03-1999 is wrong, null and void and result of fraud and undue influence and misrepresentation, as alleged? OPD-1 5. Whether the defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit land on the basis of agreement to sell, dated 06-03-1998, as alleged? OPD-1 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 8. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 9. Relief. 3. Trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff Angreg Singh (respondent No.1 herein), hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, in the following terms: “Cumulative effect of my discussion and findings on the issues above is that suit of the plaintiff succeeds and is hereby decreed and plaintiff is declared owner of suit land comprised in Khata No.55, Khatauni No.81, Khasra No.410 area measuring 0-20-08 HM situated in Mohal Bharnoli, Mouza Bhadwar, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra-HP on the basis of sale deed No.336, dated 23-03-1998 Ex.PW2/A being executed by defendant No.2 and sale deed, document No.143, dated 04-02-2000 Ex.DA in favour of defendant No.1 is declared wrong, null and void and mutation attested on basis of same is also declared wrong, null and void and consequently plaintiff is held entitled for possession of the suit land. However, reliefs granted above shall be subject to plaintiff’s furnishing court fee on the sale consideration of subsequent sale deed to the tune of Rs.960/- within one week from today, failing which, suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 4. Noticeably, parties have been litigating since the year 2000 and all litigations must come to an end at some stage, moreso when no case for interference is made out. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out. 6. Concurrently, the Courts below have held the plaintiff to be owner in possession of the suit land. Sale deed executed by defendant No.2 Shri Prema alias Prem Chand, in favour of the plaintiff, has been held to be valid, whereas sale deed executed by the very same defendant in favour of the present appellant (defendant No.1) has been held to be null and void. Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff was prior in point in time. He was put in possession of the suit land. Thus, the subsequent sale deed has been rightly held to be null and void. 7. As such, it cannot be held that findings returned by the Courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous, warranting interference by this Court. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed and disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.