IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 3510-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No. 1179 of 2008 Date of decision: 22-1-2009 Hukam Chand … Appellant versus Shori Lal and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: C.M. No.3510-C of 2008 : For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned. R.S.A. No. 1179 of 2008: Appellant before this Court was the plaintiff who has been non-suited by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction seeking restraint order against the defendant from taking forcible possession of plot No.1, measuring 370 sq. yards in khasra No. 331, Patti Suba Akbaropur, now portion of Kaziwara, Ambala City. As per case of the parties, plaintiff, Hukam Chand and defendant, Gobind Lal(since deceased) now represented by his legal representatives, were real brothers. After partition, both plaintiff and the defendant, Gobind Lal are stated to have been residing in separate portions received by them as displaced persons from the Rehabilitation Department. In the suit, plaintiff claimed that he is in exclusive possession of land measuring 370 sq. yards whereas the stand of the defendant in the written statement was that he and the plaintiff are in joint possession of the suit property. Trial Court on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit. Plaintiff then preferred an appeal which also came to be dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The very basis of the case of the plaintiff is the order of R.S.A. No. 1179 of 2008 -2- the Tehsildar (Sales) holding him to be in possession of the property and existence of his hand-pump and the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff have concurrently observed that the said order of the Tehsildar(Sales) has already been set aside by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the case has been remanded to the Tehsildar (Sales) where it is stated to be still pending. The Courts below as a matter of fact have found that there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. The Courts below have also found that the boundaries of the disputed property, in absence of the plan, so given in the head-note are different in the prayer clause and thus, have concluded that he himself is not sure as to what is the area of the plot in dispute and what are the exact area and boundaries of the plot in dispute. The first appellate Court while upholding the findings of the trial Court has further held that the present litigation on the part of the plaintiff-appellant seems to be dishonest, having been instituted with an ulterior motive just to create evidence to show his possession in the proceedings before the Tehsildar (Sales). As regards the alleged agreement, Exhibit P-5 and statement of Gobind Lal, it was observed that the same have not been proved as per law. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) January 22, 2009 JUDGE JS