R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 22.1.2009
Satpal & another
.......... Appellants
Versus
Chhote Lal
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
for the appellants.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This order of mine shall dispose of two regular second appeals
i.e. RSA Nos. 425 and 426 of 2009 both titled Satpal & another Vs. Chhote
Lal, as the common questions of law and facts are involved.
For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from
RSA No. 425 of 2009.
The plaintiff -appellants by way of this regular second appeal
have challenged the judgments and decree dated 7.9.2006 and 21.10.2008
passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-
appellants for permanent injunction stands dismissed.
The plaintiff-appellants claimed injunction by claiming
themselves to be owner in possession of the property by virtue of sale deed
said to have been executed by one Sh. Tara Chand, who was said to be
R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) 2
owner of the property in dispute by way of inheritance from his father Shiv
Lal son of Ganeshi Lal, who was said to be mortgagee under a Muslim
owner, who had migrated to Pakistan.
The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have
recorded a concurrent finding of fact that ownership of Tara Chand over the
land in dispute was not proved and, therefore, held that no valid title passed
on to the plaintiff-appellants as claimed.
The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the
following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this
appeal :-
1. Whether the appellants are bound by judgment and
decree dated 24.4.1996 ?
2. Whether the finding with regard to ownership can be
recorded in a suit for permanent injunction. If so its
effect ?
3. Whether the Courts below have misread the evidence
produced by the parties ?
The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends
that the learned Courts below committed an error in holding that the
plaintiff-appellants were bound by the judgment and decree dated
24.4.1996, even though they were not party to the said judgment and decree
nor the defendant-respondent was able to connect the suit property in the
said case with that of present suit.
It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants
that the findings recorded in suit for injunction could not be a bar to the suit
filed by the plaintiff-appellants. It was contended that the findings recorded
R.S.A. No. 425 of 2009 (O&M) 3
by the learned Courts below is out come of misreading of evidence
produced on record. Appellants claimed that the substantial questions of law
as framed deserve to be decided in favour of the plaintiff-appellants and the
judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below deserve to be set
aside.
On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Once it is
admitted position that the plaintiff-appellants had chosen to file objection in
the execution of the decree dated 24.4.1996 by claiming them to be third
party and said objections have been dismissed. The learned Courts below
were right in holding that the judgment and decree dated 24.4.1996 could be
read into evidence against the plaintiffs-appellants.
The learned Courts on appreciation of evidence rightly held
that Tara Chand was not the owner of the property through whom the
plaintiff-appellants were claiming their title and, thus, recorded findings,
which are legal and based on appreciation of evidence on record.
The substantial questions of law framed, deserve to be
answered against the appellants in view of the observations made above.
No merit.
Dismissed.
22.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE