IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2532 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.2.2011 Guru Granth Sahib Managed by Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar. … Appellant Versus Amarjit Kaur widow of Mohan Singh and others. …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sukhbir Singh Mattewal, Advocate for the appellant. Sabina, J. Plaintiff had filed suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that it was owner of the suit property. Predecessor of defendants had been settled as a tenant on the small piece of land measuring 20’ X 10’ about 45 years ago for residential purposes. Defendants had however failed to pay the mesne profits after the year 1974. Petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was filed against the tenants for their ejectment. The defendants had denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The defendants had been requested to vacate the plot in question but they had failed to do so. Hence, suit for possession of the land situated in Rect.No.215, Khasra Nos.102/1/2 and 102/2 was filed. Defendants in their written statement averred that the plaintiff had no concern with the suit land. The house of the defendants was not situated in the land described in para No.2 of the plaint. Defendants or their predecessor have never paid any rent to the plaintiff. The possession of the defendants over the house in dispute was continuous since the year 1948. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession of the land described in para No.2 of the plaint? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled to mesne profit as prayed for? OPP RSA No.2532 of 2010 3. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 4. Whether suit of plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether present suit is time barred? OPD 6. Whether present suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 7. Whether present suit is barred by principle of res-judicata? 8. Relif. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2007. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal by Additional District Judge Kurukshetra vide judgment and decree dated 16.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal filed by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendants were in possession of the plot in dispute which is part of Khasra Nos.102/1/2 and 102/2. The said fact was denied by the defendants. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the plaintiff to establish that the defendants were in possession of plot forming part of khasra numbers in dispute. The plaintiff however, fails to prove on record any demarcation report which could establish that defendants were in possession over part of Khasra Nos.102/1/2 and 102/2. The courts below had thus, rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge 11.02.2011 sd 2