R.S.A. No. 2986 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2986 of 2008 Date of decision: September 15, 2008 Hari ..Appellant v. Sunil and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Y. P. Khuller, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The defendant is in appeal before this Court against concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents for declaration and permanent injunction claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit property was decreed only to the extent that the appellant-defendant along with other defendants were restrained from dispossessing the respondents- plaintiffs forcibly or illegally, whereas the claim regarding the declaration of ownership of the property was declined. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the suit property, situated in Bada Mohalla, Palwal within the municipal limits. The description of the property was given in the suit, as identified with other properties on the East, West, North and South of the property in dispute. The ownership was claimed on the basis of the fact that the property in dispute was ancestral property which was owned and possessed by Shankar son of Ghasita, grand father of the respondents-plaintiffs. After the death of Shankar, the suit property was inherited by Brij Mohan, father of the respondents-plaintiffs. As whereabouts of Brij Mohan were not known since December, 1993, he was deemed to have expired and the respondents- plaintiffs inherited the estate of Brij Mohan. To substantiate their claim, record from the Municipal Council in the form of tax assessment register R.S.A. No. 2986 of 2008 [2] was produced. On the other hand, the appellant-defendant along with other defendants sought to dispel the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs by raising a plea that the father of the respondents owned another property in the city and in fact, the tax assessment register produced by them pertained to that and the property in dispute is not the same. However, keeping in view the fact that the evidence produced by the respondents-plaintiffs was found to be more reliable and convincing as against the oral evidence led by the appellant-defendant, the suit was decreed by the trial Court. The judgment was upheld in appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant submitted that the respondents-plaintiffs having failed to prove their case with regard to the identification of the property, the learned Courts below have gone wrong in decreeing the suit. He further referred to the observation made by the learned Court below whereby the reference has been made to the interim order passed in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, could not be relied upon at the final stage. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The claim of ownership and possession over the property in dispute was made by the respondents- plaintiffs on the basis of inheritance from their fore-fathers. The description of the property was clearly mentioned in the plaint. To prove the ownership and possession, tax assessment register, which clearly shows the name of the father of the respondents-plaintiffs as the owner of the property, had been produced, though the same was relied upon by the Court below to hold that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of the property. However, the claim regarding ownership was rejected as the tax assessment register was not found to be a document of title. As far as the claim set up by the appellant-defendant in defence besides mere an oral statement, no documentary evidence was led by him to substantiate his stand that father of the respondents-plaintiffs owned any other property in the city and the tax assessment was in fact, pertaining to that property. R.S.A. No. 2986 of 2008 [3] Keeping these facts and the material on record with the Courts below, correct conclusion has been arrived at on appreciation thereof. The findings recorded by the courts below do not give rise to any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 15.9.2008 mk