Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Kaur vs Yash Pal Sharma & Another on 6 May, 2009
R.S.A. No. 102 of 2007 1
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 102 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 6.5.2009
Ranjit Kaur
.......... Appellant
Versus
Yash Pal Sharma & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The appellant / defendant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to challenge the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2006,.
The learned Courts below by way of impugned judgment and decree have decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering in the peaceful possession of the property in dispute i.e. the house No. 244 (Plot No. 244) situated at Ashok Vihar Nagar (Salimpur Musalmana) Jalandhar.
The plaintiff claimed himself to be owner of the property in pursuance to the agreement to sell under which he was said to have put in possession. The sale deed was said to have executed by Gopal Krishan, who was registered as owner in the revenue record.
R.S.A. No. 102 of 2007 2
It is also the case of the plaintiff / respondent that after the purchase of plot he raised construction and got installed electricity connection in his name.
The appellant / defendant contested the suit by claiming herself to be owner in possession of the property in dispute on the plea of having purchased the same from one Ashwani Kumar.
The parties led evidence and on appreciation thereof, it was noticed that the agreement set up by the defendant / respondent was subsequent to the agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiff / respondent. The appellant / defendant also failed to disclose as to who was the owner of the property.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law for consideration :-
Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is based on inadmissible evidence, thus, perverse ?
In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are based on inadmissible evidence. The contention raised is based on the fact that the electricity bill produced by the plaintiff / respondent was unilateral document which cannot be said to be a sale to file a suit for permanent injunction by claiming himself to be the owner of the property in dispute.R.S.A. No. 102 of 2007 3
This contention of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves to be noticed to be rejected.
The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff / respondent has proved to be in possession of the suit land, the title set up by the defendant / appellant was not that of ownership so as to non-suit the plaintiff / respondent in a suit for permanent injunction.
The learned Courts below have also recorded a finding that in a suit for injunction, the Court was not to go into the title of the respective parties. The Courts were only to see as to who was in possession of the property.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the suit has been decreed on the basis of photocopies which were not admissible in evidence and, therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were liable to be reversed also deserves to be rejected as the photocopies were duly exhibited which too only means that the originals were either seen as no objections were taken to the document being exhibited.
The plaintiff / respondent proved on record that he was in possession of the property in pursuance to agreement to sell. Though, the agreement to sell cannot transfer a title, however, under Section 51 of the Transfer of the Property Act, the plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession by way of injunction i.e. what has been done by the learned Courts below.R.S.A. No. 102 of 2007 4
No fault, therefore, can be found with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the learned Courts below in decreeing the suit. The substantial question of law as raised, is answered against the appellant.
Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
6.5.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE