RSA No.169 of 2004(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.169 of 2004(O&M) Date of decision: 16.4.2009 Smt. Phuli wife of Sh.Ram Kalan ......Appellant Versus Phula son of Giani and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for the respondents. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.12477-C of 2008 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the application is allowed. Order dated 29.9.2008 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.169 of 2004 The present second appeal has been preferred by plaintiff No.2-Phuli challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into their ownership and possession over the property in dispute as detailed in the head note of the plaint was dismissed. As per averments made in the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the suit property from the time of their forefathers and that they have constructed houses thereon and the open space is being used by them as their Bara for the last 40-45 years. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs constructed three rooms and a RSA No.169 of 2004(O&M) 2 boundary wall about 20-25 years ago but the defendants forcibly and illegally demolished the wall and were bent upon to demolish the other construction, which necessitated the filing of the suit. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiffs. The suit property was claimed to be their ancestral property. It was also averred that between the houses of the plaintiffs and their Gher, their was a street which was not shown by the plaintiffs in their site-plan. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their ownership as well as possession over the suit property. The Lower Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Still not satisfied, plaintiff No.2 has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. In the present case, the plaintiffs have approached the Court claiming themselves to be the owners in possession over the suit property. However, both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent of finding of fact that the plaintiffs have utterly failed to produce any evidence in support of their case. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any perversity in the findings of the Courts below. Furthermore, the revenue record produced by the plaintiffs to establish their possession in the suit land is beyond pleadings. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. April 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.169 of 2004(O&M) 3