RSA No. 2630 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 7688-C of 2008 and RSA No. 2630 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 20, 2010 Gian Singh ...... Appellant Versus Rajinder Kumar and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. Mr.R.S.Chauhan, Advocate for the respondents. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 7688-C of 2008 For the reasons recorded, delay of 407 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 2630 of 2008 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration that he is owner in possession of half share of 7 marlas of land. The ground taken was that the appellant had been conveyed this land by the Central Government which was the owner thereof. It is not disputed that the said RSA No. 2630 of 2008 2 conveyance deed in favour of the appellant was challenged by the respondents and that those proceedings are now pending before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Both the Courts have come to a conclusion that the appellant has not been able to prove that he is the owner of the property in dispute. The following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the appellant had been regularly paying the licence fee and the house tax to the Municipal Council? b) Whether any issue had been framed regarding the ownership of the respondent although it was the case of the respondent that they have become the owner of the property on the basis of Will dated 27.11.1981? c) Whether appellant is owner in possession of the suit property? d) Whether the appellant has any cause of action? Questions No. (a), (b), ( c ) and (d) are pure questions of fact. On a conspectus of the entire evidence Courts below found that the appellant has not been able to prove that he had become owner of the property in dispute. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the trial Court has found that even the respondents have not been able to prove their title. I am afraid any such finding could not have the result of decreeing the suit since the appellant-plaintiff had to stand on his own legs. Once questions No. (a), (b) and ( c ) are held against the appellant, there would be no requirement to answer question No. (d). Consequently holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 20, 2010 sunita