Dismissed

Raja Ram v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Jan 2012RSA/2472/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second appeal filed by an appellant seeking permanent injunction regarding a disputed shop plot. The court upheld the lower courts' finding that the agreement to sell was suspicious and that the respondents, specifically Defendant No.3, had established possession since 1998. No question of law arose as the plaintiff failed to prove possession.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the permanent injunction suit was held to have failed as the appellant could not prove possession.

Raja Ram Vs Ravinder Kaur & Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

RSA No.2472 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA No.2472 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: January 18, 2012

Raja Ram

.......Appellant

Versus

Smt.Ravinder Kaur and others

¶10

.......Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA

¶12

Present: Mr.Aman Bahri, Advocate for the appellant.

¶13

<><><>

¶14

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.

¶15

The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court.

¶16

Briefly stated, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 to 3 from alienating the suit property to any other person and further restraining all the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement to sell, with defendant No.1 on 23.3.1993, regarding a plot of a shop for a consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The agreement to sell, apart from being signed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1, was attested by Shri PS Randhawa, Advocate and defendant No.2 i.e. the husband of defendant No.1. A power of attorney was also executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff on 23.3.1993 and the same was registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Karnal. It was pleaded that no last date was fixed for executing the sale-deed and the possession was also handed over to the plaintiff and accordingly, the case of the plaintiff was

¶17

RSA No.2472 of 2011

¶18

¶19

covered under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff further pleaded that it had come to his knowledge that a sale-deed dated 16.12.1998 had already been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 qua the plot in question. Accordingly, it was pleaded that such sale-deed is a fictitious document and had been got executed so as to defraud with the plaintiff, and it will not adversely affect the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had requested defendant No.1 to execute the saledeed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 23.3.1993, but the matter had been deferred on one pretext or the other. The defendants having refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, resultantly, the suit had been instituted.

¶20

Upon notice, defendants No.1 and 2 took a stand that the suit had been filed at the instance of one Shri PS Bishnoi, who had been posted as Tehsildar at Karnal from 9.7.1991 to 15.4.1994 in collusion with Shri Preet Mohinder Singh, Advocate of Pehowa. It was averred that the two persons aforementioned had approached defendant No.2 in connection with agricultural land belonging to the deceased father of defendant No.1 and had demanded a sum of `50,000/- for the mutation of the same in favour of defendant No.1. The amount was finalized and the same was to be paid after the mutation and for purposes of security. The Tehsildar had obtained the signatures of defendants No.1 and 2 on blank stamp papers and had also obtained a power of attorney from them. As such, it was pleaded that an alleged agreement to sell had been fabricated and the plaintiff is totally unknown to defendants No.1 and 2. The possession was not handed over to the plaintiff at any point of time. The execution of agreement to sell accordingly was denied in totality.

¶21

On the other hand, defendant No.3 filed a separate written

¶22

RSA No.2472 of 2011

¶23

¶24

statement claiming to be in possession of the suit property since 16.12.1998. It was stated that defendant No.3 was a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The vacant possession of the plot in question had been handed over to defendant No.3 in the year 1998 itself and he had been in peaceful possession of the same since then.

¶25

The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and feeling aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a civil appeal, and vide impugned judgment dated 29.11.2010, the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra affirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length.

¶27

Both the Courts below upon due appreciation of evidence have concluded that the documents i.e. agreement to sell, Exhibit P1, as well as the power of attorney, Exhibit P2, are shrouded in suspicious circumstances. Even in the statements of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff-appellant, material contradictions with respect to the execution of documents, Exhibits P1 and P2, have been noticed. Respondent-defendant No.3 has been held to be in established possession of the suit property by virtue of the sale-deed dated 16.12.1998. It has further been concluded that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove his possession over the suit property.

¶28

The conclusions and findings of both the Courts below are based on sound reasoning and upon appreciation of evidence led. I do not find any perversity in the same and no interference as such is called for. That apart, it has been noticed that the plaintiff-appellant had merely filed a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter. He had not filed a suit for specific

¶29

RSA No.2472 of 2011

¶30

¶31

performance in the light of the alleged agreement to sell dated 23.3.1993 and had not even set up a challenge to the sale-deed dated 16.12.1998 in favour of defendant No.3. Under such circumstances, when the possession of the suit property has been held to be with defendant No.3 since the year 1998 and the plaintiff-appellant himself having been unable to lead evidence as regards his possession in such suit property, the relief of permanent injunction could not have been granted.

¶32

No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the present second appeal.

¶33

The present appeal being devoid of merit must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶34

Appeal dismissed.

¶35

( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) JANUARY 18, 2012 JUDGE

¶36

SRM

¶37

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Raja Ram v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raja Ram v. Ravinder Kaur & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh and Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat Daulatpur and Ors.

U.H.B.N.L. and Anr. Vs Jai Jagdembhey Steel Pvt. Ltd.

Brij Lal and Ors. Vs Sukhdyal Singh and Ors.

Malkiat Singh Vs Kesar Singh & Ors.

Des Raj and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Major Singh Vs Surjit Singh