HANS RAJ Vs. BANTA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit for permanent injunction on the basis of agreements to sell Exhibit P-3 and P-5 dated 18.8.1995, was decreed.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that he has entered into an agreement of sale, for purchase of the suit land with one Gian Chand and one Munshi Ram on the aforesaid date. Gian Chand and Munshi Ram have been conveyed the suit property on 5.1.1976 vide Exhibits P-2 and P-4 respectively by the Naib Tehsildar (Sales). The site plan has been drawn on the second page of the conveyance deed. On the basis of the aforesaid conveyance deed and the agreements to sell, the learned first Appellate Court has returned a finding that the possession has been delivered to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled to protect his possession.

(3.) HOWEVER , I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is no doubt correct that the agreement of sale is not a document of title, but the fact remains that the prospective vendee is entitled to protect his possession in part performance of the agreement to sell, therefore, no fault can be found with the findings returned by the learned first Appellate Court. It is also well settled that presumption is that possession follows ownership. The defendants have not rebutted such presumption which may lead to inference of possession of the defendants. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.