SARUPA Vs. PURAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr., 2008 AIR(SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not

(2.) Tersenessly, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the indicated core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that Puran son of Moti Ram respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity "the plaintiff") filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession of the plot, denominated by letters ABCD shown in the site plan (Ex.PY), situated within the abadi deh of village Madina, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining his brother Krishan proforma respondent No.2-defendant No.1 and Sarupa son of Kehru appellant-defendant No.2 (for short "the defendants") from interfering in his (plaintiff) possession over the property in dispute.

(3.) The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that he is owner and in possession of the plot in question. A demolished kotha belonging to him is in existence and his bricks are also lying in it. The plaintiff is using the same for parking his cart (Buggi) and for other domestic purposes. The defendants have no concern in it. According to the plaintiff that although defendant No.1 had no alienable right, but still, he has illegally executed the sale deed dated 4.1.1993 (Ex.PW4/A) in favour of defendant No.2, without any title or interest in order to grab the plot in dispute of the plaintiff. The sale deed was stated to be illegal, null, void and not binding on his rights. The defendants were intending to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, on the basis of alleged sale deed, without any legal right. He requested them not to do so, but in vain, which necessitated him to file the suit. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration/permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner indicated hereinabove.