In a second appeal, the Court observed that concurrent findings established the appellants delivered possession to respondents under a sale agreement. The Court held no substantial question of law arose as appellants were not entitled to injunction against co-sharers and lacked possession.
Appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law arose.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
RSA No.3126 of 2010 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.3126 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:16.02.2012
Daya Ram
......Appellant
Vs.
Ramavtar and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
CM No.9231-C of 2010:
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking 1 day delay in filing the appeal. The application is duly supported by an affidavit.
For the reasons stated in the application, prayer is allowed . Delay of 1 day in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA No.3126 of 2010:
The plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.
The plaintiffs instituted a suit for permanent injunction in terms of the pleadings that they are co-sharers in khasra No.10/26 measuring 1 kanal, 2 marlas (hereinafter to be referred as the suit land) situated in village Jainpur. Even a pumping set has been installed in such suit land. An electric
RSA No.3126 of 2010 (O&M) -2-
connection had also been obtained in the name of defendant No.1 and a tubewell also stands installed in such suit land. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs have 2/3rd share in the suit land whereas, defendant No.1 has the remaining 1/3rd share. As the defendants were interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs as such the suit had been filed. Upon notice, the defendants took a stand that even though, a pumping set had been installed in the joint suit land but the plaintiffs had not made any payment. It was also averred that the plaintiffs had since entered into an agreement to sell dated 30.12.1996 to sell their 2/3rd share for a sum of 1,14,200/- and had already received a sum of 95,600/- towards part performance of the contract. It was also stated that the plaintiffs had already delivered the possession of land to defendant No.1 and the last date for execution of the sale was stipulated as on or before 03.02.1997. The plaintiffs had failed to perform their part of contract and accordingly, defendant No.1 had filed a suit for specific performance with regard to the agreement to sell dated 30.12.1996.
The trial Court upon having heard respective counsel for the parties and having appreciated the evidence led on record, dismissed the suit. Even, the civil appeal preferred by the plaintiffs/appellants had been dismissed vide judgment dated 16.10.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Narnaul. Resultantly, the plaintiff/appellant is in second appeal before this Court.
I have heard Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant at length.
Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs/appellants have already delivered the possession in respect to their 2/3rd in the suit land on 30.12.1996 upon having received a sum of
RSA No.3126 of 2010 (O&M)
-3-
` 95,600/-. It also stands proved on record that the defendants/respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 30.12.1996 and a copy of the plaint was produced on record as Ex. DW3/A. Ex.DW2/A is the written statement, filed in the suit for specific performance by the present plaintiff/appellant. Admittedly, the suit for specific performance in respect to the agreement dated 30.12.1996, already stands decreed against the plaintiffs and Ex.DW4/C is the decree sheet. The plaintiffs/appellants in terms of their own pleadings, were the co-sharers in respect of the suit land and as such they were not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction against the co-sharers. The plaintiffs have also not been held to be in possession of the suit property as it stands proved that they had already entered into an agreement to sell such suit property and had already delivered the possession in part performance of the contract. In the light of such concurrent finding of fact, there is no scope for interference in second appeal by this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the present second appeal.
Appeal dismissed .
February 16, 2012 harjeet
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE
Note: Whether to be reported? No
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court can interfere in the first appeal when the appellant was not in possession of the suit property.
Whether the appellant is entitled to discretionary relief of injunction against co-sharers.
Whether a substantial question of law arises for determination in the second appeal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Daya Ram
Ramavtar and others
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
