R.S.A. No. 534 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 534 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.1.2009 Amar Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Raj Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 26.5.2008 and 16.1.2009 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellants filed a suit for declaration that they were owner in possession of the property in dispute with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Along with the suit, a site plan was attached showing area in possession of the plaintiffs measuring 55'x55' i.e. about 14 marlas of land. The plaintiffs claimed that at the time of allotment, they were allotted 7 marlas of land. The suit was contested wherein plea was taken that the plainitffs are wrongly claiming 7 marlas of land, as they were allotted only 5 marlas of land. They are trying to encroach upon the other land R.S.A. No. 534 of 2009 (O&M) -2- in the garb of the present suit. It was also pleaded that necessary application for correction of allotment also stands filed with the Consolidation Officer. Be that as it may, the learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that though the plaintiff/appellants were able to prove that they were alloted 7 marlas of land but the site plan attached with the plaint shows that they were claiming their ownership and possession over 17.9 marlas of land i.e. 88x55 feet. The learned Courts thus held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case with regard to ownership over the plot in dispute. The plea of injunction has also been declined on the ground that the plaintiff/appellants had not approached the Court with clean hands. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence and, therefore, perverse? 2. Whether the learned Courts below failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence on record i.e. khasra, girdawri, mutation and aks sajra apart from site plan produced by the defendants, which prove that the appellants are owner in possession of khasra No. 89/1? 3. Whether the order dated 21.10.2003 Ex. D-1/B i.e. subsequent mutation could be taken into consideration, which came into existence after passing of the status quo order by the Court?” In support of first substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned Courts below have misread the documentary evidence brought on record, as the site plan attached with the suit was for 55x55 feet, which has been misread to 88'x55'. R.S.A. No. 534 of 2009 (O&M) -3- This plea of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted, as even if the figures are taken to be 55'x55', the area would come to about 14 marlas, which is double the area which stands allotted to the plaintiffs and, therefore, they could not claim declaration qua site in dispute. The second and third substantial questions of law, as framed, do not arise, as the learned Courts below have taken into consideration the evidence brought on record and have recorded a positive finding that the plaintiffs were allotted 7 marlas of land, which is even the case of the plaintiffs. The learned Courts below held that the plaintiffs had not come to Court with clean hands, as admittedly, they claimed much more area than the one allotted. Thus, no substantial question of law arise for consideratin by this Court in this regular second appeal. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge January 30, 2009 R.S.