JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

RS A-2593-2014 (O& M)

Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003 filed by the appellant for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both Courts below.

RS A-3564-2019 (O& M)

Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby Civil Suit No. 568 dated 08.06.2011 filed by the appellant for permanent injunction, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Both the above said appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as both are in respect of the same suit land; between the same parties; and facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical. Vide order dated 25.07.2019, Predecessor Bench of this Court had directed in RSA-3564-2019 that both the appeals be heard together. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from RSA-2593-2014 as “Sarwan Kumar vs. Parkash Chand and another.”

3. The facts as pleaded by the appellant in the plaint was that the suit property measuring 206 sq.yds. was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and one another brother, namely, Gian Chand from its previous owner Smt. Shanti Devi vide registered Sale Deed dated 16.01.1990. Thereafter, construction on the suit property was raised by all the three brothers. It was contended that since the property was not partitioned, nobody had the right to alienate or dispose of the same in favour of anybody. However, defendant No.1 has sold property in question to defendant No.2 vide Sale Deed dated 29.07.2003 without consent and will of the plaintiff and without the partition of the property. Thus, the said Sale Deed dated 29.07.2003 was illegal, null and void. It was further alleged in the plaint that the defendant No.1 had sold more than his share in the suit property to defendant No.2. It was further alleged that defendant No.2 is trying to make addition, alteration or construction in the suit property, which could not be permitted. Plaintiff had requested defendants not to do so but to no effect. Accordingly, present Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003 was filed seeking declaration to the effect “that the sale deed dated 29.7.2003 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void, unlawful and carries no value in the eyes of law, as the property measuring 206 Sq. Yds., bearing Pvt. No.6-A, Khasra Khata No.1781- 1783-1784-1785, No.344/360, situated at Abadi Guru Gobind Singh Nagar Sub urban, Majitha Road, Amritsar has not been partitioned by metes and bounds and with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from making any addition, alteration or construction in the said property in any manner whatsoever may be”.

4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar had dismissed the Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003 of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 13.06.2012. The Civil Appeal No. 14899 of 2012 filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2013. Hence, the present RSA-2593-2014 has been filed by the plaintiff.

5. It may be pointed out that during the pendency of the Civil Suit No. 94 dated 16.08.2003, plaintiff had also filed Civil Suit No. 568 dated 08.06.2011 (subject matter of RSA-3564-2019) before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar titled as Sarwan Kumar vs. Chaman Lal and another, seeking following relief:-

“Suit for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant No.1 himself or his associates, privies agents, representatives, attorneys etc. from dismantling any part of the property or from raising any kind of additions, alterations, construction, reconstruction by demolishing the property and also r