Hem Singh and Others vs Balwant Singh and Others

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—In the instant case, the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs seeking cancellation of sale deed 15.12.2003 executed by deceased Bhanwar Singh in favour of the respondent No. 1-(defendant No. 1) in respect of the suit land has been dismissed. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. S.C. Gupta for the appellants that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record that the deceased Bhanwar Singh had no right to sell the lands in question to the respondent No. 1. He also submitted that the trial Court has materially erred in not believing the possession of the appellants merely because the appellants did not produce the receipts of the tax (Lagan) in respect of the said lands. According to Mr. Gupta, the High Court in one writ petition arising out of the revenue proceedings, in connection with the suit lands had directed the parties to maintain status quo and therefore in this appeal also the parties be directed to maintain status quo. As against that the learned counsel Mr. Anoop Dhand for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the trial Court has not believed the possession of the appellants. He also submitted that the application for interim relief in the present appeal is pending since 2009 and no order has been passed by the Court since last three years in favour of the appellants, and therefore, the present application be dismissed.

Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and to the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has dismissed the suit of the appellants-plaintiffs. Of course, the appeal has been admitted against the said impugned judgment, however it appears that the appellants had failed to prove their possession over the suit lands by leading any cogent and the reliable evidence before the trial Court. Though, the learned counsel Mr. Gupta has submitted that some order in the writ petition was passed in respect of suit lands, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said writ petition was pertaining to the lands in question and between the same parties and whether the said order is in force till this date or not. Be that as it may, the trial Court has found that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit lands. There is also no interim order passed by this Court since last three years. In absence of any prima facie case of possession made out by the appellants, this Court is not inclined to grant any interim relief pending appeal. In that view of the matter, the application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.