69 1 e1 ReqularSecond Apoeal Noe 1270 of 2011 1OSMIe IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C21 Date of Decision2 March 2011 1 1 ReqularSecond Appeal Noe 1270 of 2011 O8MIe 0 0 Surjit minor son of Ranjit through his mother SmteRoshni I Devi eae Appellant C5 I VERSUS Z Dharampal and others Respondents C I CORAM HONBLE MRJUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Z 1 Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see C the judgment7 2e To be referred to the Reportersor not7 3e Whether the judgrnentshould be reportedin the Digest7 me5 Z Qn Presentl Mr KC Rajput Advocate for the appellant MOHINDER PAL 0 Plaintiffa ppelIant Su rjit mi nor through his mother SmtRoshni Devi IS in second appeal aggrieved against the judgmentand decree passed by the Iower AppellateCourt wherebythe judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was set aside and the su it filed by the plaintiff for permanent Parkash Om 2012.11.30 12: 45 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 70 m2 Reclular Second Apoeal Noa 1270 of 2011 lO8MI injunctionin respectof the house in dispute was dismissed The appellant ciaimed that the house in disputeconsistingof two rooms came to him olaintif through registeredWill dated 11 11993 Exhibit P2 executed by his maternal grandefatherRanjitSingh in his olaintiffsl favour Ranjit 1 Singh has since died Accordingto the plaintiff after the death 0 of RanjitSingh he became ownerin possessionof the house i n 0 I dispute On the other hand the defendantespondentsclaimed C5 that they were ownersin possessionofthe said house and had I everyright to enjoyand use the said house for residential and Z other purposes Though the trial Court decreed the suit of the I plaintifappellant thereby restrainingthe defendantsesporients from interferingin the peacefulpossessionof the plaintifappellant Z over the house in dispute but the Iower AppellateCourt C0 reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by aw Z holding that the Iand over which the house in dispute had been e constructed was the propertyof the Gram Panchayat It was also observed by the trial Court that thoughthe Iand beneath the house in disputebelongsto the PanchayatDeh but the plaintiff atleast has been a ble to prove his possession with the help of Exhibit P2 as well as with the evidence of DW 1 Exhibit De2 is the Will executed by the grandfather of the plaintiff in his favour Adrnittedly the Iand beneath the house in dispute belongsto Gram Panchayat which was not impleaded as a party in this case If the Iand underneath the house in dispute belongsto the Parkash Om 2012.11.30 12: 45 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 e3 Reciular Second Appeal Noe 1270 of 2011 08M1e Gram Panchayat needless to say grancefatherof the plaintiff was not authorized to bequeaththe house to the plaintiff No fault therefore can be found with the findings recorded by the the iower appellateCourt Ieadingto the reversal of the judgmentand decree passedby the trial Court and dismissal of 1 the suit filed by the appellant 0 In view of the above I do not find any patent illegality 0 I or irregularity in the findings of fact recorded by the first 0 AppellateCourt which may give rise toany substan8alquestionof Iaw inthe present appeal Z Hence the present appealis dismissed 9 1 602 1 I C PALI March 2011 JUDGE 1 ak Z J m 9 4t Parkash Om 2012.11.30 12: 45 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document