DUNI CHAND Vs. RAM PARKASH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Plaintiff's second appeal whose suit for joint possession has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

(2.) THE Plaintiff Duni Chand filed the suit for possession of one -third share in the shop, in dispute and for a declaration that the sale deed dated December 20, 1972. executed in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant No. 3, was ineffective against his rights. By way of consequential relief, a decree for permanent injunction restraining Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from changing the condition of the shop, in dispute, and from making any further transfer etc. was also prayed. According to the Plaintiff, the shop, in dispute, was inherited by him and Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 by succession from Dasaundhi Ram in the share of one third each. Defendant No. 3 effected the sale in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - on December 20, 1972 which according to the Plaintiff was unauthorised and did not effect his rights. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the Plaintiff had no right or interest in the shop, in dispute, because Defendant No. 3 was the sole owner thereof and that the same was already on rent with Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on his behalf for the last 18 years. It was also pleaded that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were bona fide purchasers, without notice and for consideration. The trial Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the owner of the property, in dispute. It was further found that after the death of Dasaundhi Ram, Faquir Chand, Defendant No. 3, was in exclusive possession of the shop, in dispute and that there was no element of jointness with the Plaintiff, as alleged. A finding was also recorded that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were bona fide purchasers without notice for value. As a result, the Plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court on all the issues except the one issue No. 3 which was: as to whether Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were the bona fide purchaser for value. Ultimately, the decree of the trial Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit was maintained. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff has filed second appeal in this Court.

(3.) ON the appreciation of the entire evidence oral as well as documentary , it has been found as a fact that Faqir Chand, Defendant, was the owner in possession of the shop, in dispute, and that the Plaintiff had nothing to do with the same His plea that he had one -third share therein was negatived by both the Courts below. As regards the issue as to whether the Defendants were the bona fide purchasers, though the trial Court had found this issue in favour of the Defendants, yet its finding has been reversed in appeal. But in any case, the Plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that he failed to prove himself to be the owner to the extent of one -third share in the shop, in dispute as alleged. Therefore, the correctness of the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court on issue No. 3 need not be gone into.