Rajesh Bindal, J. - (1.) THE plaintiff is before this court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below in a suit for permanent injunction filed by him seeking to protect possession of a double storey property, situated in Old Anaj Mandi, Palwal, being owner thereof.
(2.) THE size of the property is stated to be 2 x 5 yards: 10 square yards. Both the courts below did not find that the appellant -plaintiff had been able to prove his ownership and possession on the property in dispute, hence, dismissed the suit. The learned lower appellate court while discussing the evidence produced by the appellant opined that the claim set up by the appellant -plaintiff was on the basis of entry dated 1.3.1953 in the bahi, whereby 10 square yards of phad (chabutra) was purchased by him for a sum of Rs. 99/ -. Though the learned lower appellate court had rejected that document opining that for the purpose of transfer of ownership, sale deed was required to be registered, however, the fact remains that total consideration was merely Rs. 99/ -, hence, rejection of that document as such cannot be appreciated. This is not the only reason to non -suit the appellant -plaintiff. In addition thereto, judgment (Ex. D2) dated 14.6.2001, titled as "Pehlad Singh v. Moti Ram" was produced on record by the respondents. In that case, the present appellant filed eviction petition against Moti Ram and Satya Parkash pertaining to first floor of the property in dispute claiming himself to be the landlord. The same was dismissed as relationship of landlord and tenant could not be proved. In that case, the present appellant in his cross -examination had admitted that there was a family settlement between him, his five brothers and mother in the year 1976 and in terms thereof, the disputed property had fallen to the share of his brother -Rohtas Singh, meaning thereby Rohtas Singh had become owner of the property in dispute after family settlement. Appeal against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.3.2004 (mark 'A'). There is another judgment (Ex. D3) pertaining to eviction petition filed by the present appellant against Sumer Chand claiming him to be tenant on the property in dispute. The same was also dismissed opining that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant. Appeal against the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 20.2.2007 (mark 'B'). Still another eviction petition filed by the present appellant against Sumer Chand was dismissed vide judgment (Ex. D4). Appeal against the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.2008 (Ex. D5).
(3.) FROM the aforesaid material on record, the learned court below opined that once the property in question had gone to the share of Rohtas Singh, brother of the present appellant in terms of the family settlement arrived at before this court on 6.8.1976, who had sold the same to Satya Parkash son of Sumer Chand, the claim of the appellant that he was owner of the property and hence in possession, was not made out. The court further opined that identity of the property could not be established vis -a -vis the one allegedly purchased by the appellant vide entry in the bahi on 1.3.1953. Once the property pertaining to which the dispute was sought to be raised was owned by the family, for which partition was effected, there was no question of purchasing the same by the appellant in terms of the entry in the bahi on 1.3.1953. In fact, the entry shows that the same was merely a phad (chabutra) in Anaj Mandi. The appellant has not been able to identify the property with the property allegedly mentioned in the bahi entry as the case set up was for a two storey building. The appellant has not been able to dispute the earlier litigation initiated by him whereby in the eviction petitions filed by him, he had not been able to establish that he was owner or landlord of the property in question and further his admission in the earlier litigation that the property in question had fallen to the share of his brother -Rohtas Singh in the family partition.;