R.S.A. No. 2595 of 2009(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2595 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 23, 2009 Mulkh Raj …..Appellant Vs. Inderpal Singh …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Taranjit Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff- appellant for permanent injunction pertaining to plot measuring 430 sq. yards situated in red line of Village Kakka Tehsil and District Ludhiana, on the basis of ownership has been dismissed by the trial Court as well as by the lower Appellate Court, holding that neither the plaintiff- appellant has been able to establish his ownership R.S.A. No. 2595 of 2009(O&M) [2] by way of any title deed or by adverse possession, as claimed by him, nor he has been proved to be in possession. Learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff- appellant Mr.M.L.Saggar has vehemently contended that the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has adopted wrong approach in appreciation of evidence. It has been submitted that report Ex.P2, prepared by the Local Commissioner, an Advocate at the instance of the plaintiff- appellant clearly establishes the possession of the plaintiff. 16 photographs produced on the record to show his possession. The objections have wrongly been allowed pertaining to the said report on the ground that neither any directions have been given to the Local Commissioner to take photographs nor the defendant was joined at the time of the preparation of the report. It has also been argued that the Sanad Ex. D1 has wrongly been believed by the Courts below as the boundaries of the property are not clearly depicted in the Sanad which has been relied upon by the Courts below in favour of the defendant- respondent. He has also argued that in a suit for injunction, the primary objection of a Court is always to determine the possession and to adjudicate the claim of injunction on the basis of possession which has not been correctly done by the Courts below. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- appellant at length and gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. It is pertinent to observe here that the suit of injunction had been filed by the plaintiff- appellant specifically taking up the plea that he is owner of the property in dispute. When injunction is claimed on the basis of ownership it is R.S.A. No. 2595 of 2009(O&M) [3] expected from the plaintiff to establish the ownership. Another interesting feature of the present case is that in the suit for injunction, ownership has been claimed on the basis of the adverse possession which plea apparently was not available to the plaintiff- appellant. The Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that by virtue of Sanad Ex.D1 dated February 27, 1955, Makhan Bai, grand-mother of the defendant who died in 1968 was allotted the land in dispute. She, by virtue of a Will dated May 26, 1967, bequeathed the property in dispute to the father of defendant- respondent. The defendant had inherited the said property in dispute from his father. The Courts below have not solely relied upon the report of the Local Commissioner but it is the cumulative effect of the different findings given on the appreciation of the evidence that the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed. Counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has sought to establish that substantial question of law is involved in the present case. After hearing counsel for the appellant at length, I am of the opinion that in view of the concurrent finding which is passed on the appreciation of evidence, no substantial question arise. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. Since there was a delay of 104 days in refilling of the appeal, an application bearing C.M. No.7677-C of 2009 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. R.S.A. No. 2595 of 2009(O&M) [4] As the main case is dismissed on merits, no order is required to be passed on the application for condition of delay. It is deemed to be allowed. The application is disposed of. October 23, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE