RSA No. 1150 of 2008 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1150 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.10.2009 Shiv Kumar ......Appellant Versus Laxmi Narain and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Gopal Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.1 is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encroaching upon or raising any construction over the open chowk marked as `ABCD' was decreed. The plaintiffs have also sought declaration that the sale deed dated 18.8.1998 executed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendant No.1 is null & void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and other villagers. RSA No. 1150 of 2008 [ 2 ] Defendant No.1, the present appellant, has alleged that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were competent to execute the sale deed as they were owners and in possession of the suit land. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in their written statement averred that they have purchased the suit property in February 1952 from Kurdiya son of Makhan Singh for a consideration of Rs.99/- and since then they were in possession of the suit as owners. To prove the sale, the defendants relied upon an affidavit dated 26.10.1998 executed by Raj Singh, grandson of Kurdiya. Defendant-Gram Panchayat in its written statement averred that the land in dispute was part of Sham Lat Deh and is being used for common purposes of the village. The defendant No. 4 is in possession of the suit property in terms of Sections 3 and 4 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. The learned trial Court decreed the suit holding that defendant No.1 has failed to prove the title of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by way of purchase from Kurdiya. It was also found that in Civil Court decree in Civil Suit No. 17 of 1950 [ Surjan etc. v. Tara Chand etc. ], the property in question was held to be the private property of Kurdiya, but the suit property in the said suit is not connected by the defendants with the subject matter of the present suit. It is not the case of the defendants that the disputed land comprises in Khasra Number 861, which was the subject matter of the earlier proceedings. Consequently, a finding was returned that the appellant has failed to prove the title of the vendors over the suit property. RSA No. 1150 of 2008 [ 3 ] Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the appellant is proved to be owner of the suit property on the basis of evidence of Raj Singh, grandson of Kurdiya, therefore, the appellant is owner in possession of the suit property. The said argument is not tenable. The learned trial Court has found that in the previous proceedings, the Civil Court held the property comprising in khasra No. 861 as the private property of Kurdiya, whereas the property in dispute does not bear the aforesaid khasra number. Still further, there is no document of sale proved on record by Kurdiya in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. The affidavit of Raj Singh cannot be considered as evidence in the suit since said Raj Singh has not been examined as a witness in the present case. Therefore, the appellant is not proved to be owner of the suit property as defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have no saleable interest in the suit property. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 5.10.2009 ds