HARBANT SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for decree of declaration to the effect that he be declared owner and in possession of the property, measuring 3 marlas, comprising in khasra No.352/1, further description of which was given by him in his plaint. It was his case that he has purchased the said property from one Bhajan Singh, vide a registered sale deed dated 9.8.1989. In that suit, respondent asserted his claim, to the said property, on the basis of judgment and decree passed in his favour on 7.12.1990. Suit was dismissed. However, respondent No.1 succeeded in appeal. The appellate Court below has noticed that so far as respondent No.1 is concerned, regarding land, in dispute, defendant No.2 Bhajan Singh executed an agreement to sell in his favour on 26.6.1989. Thereafter, sale deed was executed on 9.8.1989. It has further been noticed by the RSA No.1026 of 2005 -2- appellate Court below that in favour of the appellant-defendant, regarding that very land, agreement to sell was executed by respondent No.2 Bhajan Singh on 4.8.1989. When sale deed was not executed in favour of the appellant, he filed a suit for specific performance on 25.9.1989 without impleading respondent No.1 as a party. By noticing above-mentioned facts, appellate Court below came to a conclusion that when sale was effected, in favour of the respondent No.1, suit, referred to above, was not pending and as such, on the basis of decree passed in the year 1990, no relief could have been granted in favour of the appellant, as by that time, respondent Bhajan Singh ceased to be the owner of the property, in dispute. To arrive at above-mentioned finding, reliance has been placed upon sale deed Ex.PW4/A, copy of agreement to sell Ex.P1 and also copy of judgment and decree dated 7.12.1990 in favour of the appellant. This Court feels that the finding given by the appellant Court below is perfectly justified and is based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, as when decree was passed in favour of the appellant, Bhajan Singh was not the owner, as such, relief has rightly been declined to the appellant by the appellate Court below. No case is made out for interference in pure findings of fact, as no substantial question of law has been raised at the time of arguments. Dismissed. March 03, 2006 ( Jasbir Singh ) gk Judge