R.S.A. No. 553 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 553 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 3.3.2011 Karam Kaur ......Appellant Versus Hari Singh and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Karam Kaur has filed a suit for declaration that she was owner in possession of the suit property marked 'ABCD' in the site plan. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was owner in possession of the site in dispute. The house of the defendants was situated at some distance from the suit property. Defendants were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the R.S.A. No. 553 of 2009 (O&M) 2 defendants were owner in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff had no concern with the suit property. Defendants had already filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff qua the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 1.8.2007, trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Shahabjada Ajit Singh Nagar (Mohali) vide judgment and decree dated 8.8.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. In the present case, appellant has placed on record copy of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in a suit filed by Hari Singh. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court have been correctly placed on record. Since the records of the case have been received from the trial Court, I have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court from the record of the trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. In order to establish her case, plaintiff had placed reliance on site plan Ex.P-1. However, a perusal of the said site plain reveals that the site in dispute has not been depicted in the said site plan. Moreover, the R.S.A. No. 553 of 2009 (O&M) 3 name of the drafts-man, who had prepared the site plan, has not been mentioned in the site plan nor the said drafts-man had been examined by the plaintiff. Plaintiff had failed to prove any document on record qua her ownership with respect to the suit property. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 3, 2011 Anand