IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4988 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.3.2010 Dilbag Singh. ....... Appellant. Versus Rameshwar Dayal. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri S.M.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. The plaintiff has filed the instant appeal against judgments and decrees dated 10.5.2007 and 3.8.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohindergarh (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Narnaul (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court') whereby his suit and appeal have been dismissed. A suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property described by letters KJEF in the site plan attached with the plaint. He had also made a further prayer that the defendant be restrained from raising any construction over the suit property. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that he was in possession of the land marked with R.S.A.No.4988 of 2009 (O&M) -2- .... letters ABCDEFGHI, whereas the land marked with letters JKEF is vacant and the same is being used by him as Sahan. It was alleged that prior thereto, a suit titled as Sohan Lal Versus Matadin was dismissed on 10.11 Samwat 2001 and a compromise dated 27.2 Samwat 2002 was effected in the Panchayat and Matadin, who was grand-father of the plaintiff,was declared owner of this property. The defendant contested the suit and denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was pleaded by him that the house of Budh Ram, father of the plaintiff, was situated on the northern side of the disputed property and there was no ventilator, jangla, morri, parnala/ door of their house towards the suit property. He claimed ownership and possession of the suit property to be his own and pleaded that a wall had been raised by him to the height of two and half feet where a chokhat (gate) has been affixed by him. It was averred that Ami Chand son of Natha had filed a suit titled “Ami Chand Versus Arjun etc.” and in that suit, a Local Commissioner was appointed in whose report, the suit property was shown to be owned and possessed by the defendant. The judgment dated 10.11 Samwat 2001 or compromise, if any, had been denied by the defendant and it was pleaded that they did not bind him. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD R.S.A.No.4988 of 2009 (O&M) -3- .... 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 5. Whether the suit is hit by principle of waiver?OPD 6. Whether the defendant is entitled to special cost under section 35A CPC?OPD 7. Relief. The trial Court, as also the first appellate Court, concluded that the suit property was owned by the defendant and no encroachment, in any form, over the property of the plaintiff was established. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. All the witnesses, who were produced by the plaintiff in this case, categorically stated that no window, door or ventilator of his house opens towards the suit property which is lying vacant. PW1-Rattan Singh, who proved rough site plan, Exhibit PW1/A went on to say in his cross- examination that he did not see the house of Budh Ram, father of the plaintiff and that there was no ventilator, door, drain etc. on the wall marked by letters KJ and that he could not say as to whether there was any door of defendant towards the open space. Some of the witnesses have expressed total ignorance about the suit property and, therefore, the evidence led by the plaintiff was of no avail to him. The plaintiff relied heavily on the proceedings of the earlier suit to contend that the finding of ownership was R.S.A.No.4988 of 2009 (O&M) -4- .... recorded in his favour. It is also incorrect because it has been noticed in the judgment of the first appellate Court that the decree in question did not define the property by any khasra number. It was the duty of the plaintiff to have established that decree dated 10.11 Samwat 2001 pertained to the same khasra number which is in question in the instant suit. There is no such evidence. In such an eventuality, the findings recorded by the Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to establish his case do not warrant any interference, more-so when these are purely questions of fact and do not show any substantial question requiring determination by this Court. In the result, the instant appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. March 9,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge