RSA No.793 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.793 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2011 Smt. Bachni and another ……Appellants Versus Surjit Singh …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs-Bachni and her son Gian Chand having lost in both the Courts below are in second appeal. Appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for possession of suit land measuring 4 marlas being part of khasra No.23354/4879/4881 (4-7) described by boundaries and depicted in the site plan alleging that plaintiffs purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 07.08.1978 and are owners thereof, but the defendant had encroached upon the same and raised construction thereon because the plaintiffs were abroad. The defendant denied the plaint averments and pleaded that he is in possession of the suit property since the year 1980 and raised construction thereon. It was also alleged that in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunction, he claimed area of his land to be 1 kanal 7 marlas, but in the present RSA No.793 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 - suit, he has shown the total area of 4 kanals 7 marlas. The instant suit was also pleaded to be barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 10.04.2008 dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that plaintiffs purchased 1 kanal 8 marlas land out of khasra No.23354/4879/4881 (4-7) and suit land measuring 4 marlas is part thereof and, therefore, plaintiffs are proved to be owners of suit land. The contention is apparently attractive but cannot be accepted being meritless. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to depict that suit land is part of khasra No.23354/4879/4881 (4-7) of which the plaintiffs purchased a part. The plaintiffs did not obtain any demarcation to depict that suit land is part of said khasra number. In the absence thereof, the plaintiffs cannot be said to be owners of the suit land, although they may be cosharer in land of khasra No.23354/4879/4881 (4-7). However, suit land is not proved to be RSA No.793 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 - part of said khasra number. Consequently, Courts below have rightly held the plaintiffs to be not proved as owners of the suit land. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below to non-suit the plaintiffs is justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 19.05.2011. A.kaundal