DIDAR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the defendant-respondents are in possession of the suit land and the sale deed Ex. D6 propounded by the defendant-respondents is not the result of any fraud or forgery. It has further been held that once it is established that the plaintiff-appellants are not in possession, then no permanent injunction could be issued against the defendant-respondents. It has also been held that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction simplicitor would not be competent without seeking the relief of possession. This has been provided by proviso to Sec. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The aforementioned proviso came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Ram Saran and another Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2685 . In such a situation the suit would be hit by Sec. 42 of the Act. The observations of their Lordships read as under:-

(2.) In view of the above, there is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. No question of law much less substantive question of law has been raised nor any such question on perusal of judgments of both the Courts below arises warranting admission of this Appeal.

(3.) For the reasons recoded above, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. In view of the fact that appeal is being dismissed on merits, I do not wish to pass any order on the application seeking condonation of delay.