R. S. A. No. 1614 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1614 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 05, 2011 Municipal Council, Samana .... Appellant Vs. Gurnam Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Naiya Gill, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.1 Municipal Council, Samana having failed in both the courts below is in second appeal. Respondent-plaintiff Gurnam Singh filed suit against defendant no.1-appellant and its Executive Officer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 01 kanal 17 marlas and from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom and from taking forcible possession thereof. The plaintiff alleged that he, along with others, is co-sharer in the suit land. Plaintiff's family had donated some adjoining land for construction of Bus Stand, where Bus Stand is now running. However, defendants have no R. S. A. No. 1614 of 2011 2 right, title or interest in the suit land, but they threatened to raise construction therein, necessitating the filing of the instant suit. Defendants inter alia pleaded that plaintiff and one Inderjit Singh had donated one acre land each in the year 1974 in favour of defendants for construction of Bus Stand. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff and Inderjit Singh also donated 10 feet land each on Eastern and Western side by attending the proceedings of defendant no.1, wherein resolution dated 19.11.1973 was passed in this regard. Bus Stand has been constructed on total area of 02 acres 02 kanals and 18 marlas land including the suit land and Bus Stand is running there since then. Defendants are already in possession of the suit land. Plaint allegations were broadly controverted. Some other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by defendant no.1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.1 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. It is undisputed that plaintiff and Inderjit Singh had donated one acre land each for construction of Bus Stand. The dispute remains regarding suit land, which is not part of the said land, which was donated. R. S. A. No. 1614 of 2011 3 The defendants, however, claimed that suit land and some other land was separately donated by plaintiff and Inderjit Singh being 10 feet each on Eastern and Western sides of the other donated land. However, defendants have miserably failed to substantiate the said version. The defendants have heavily relied on resolution dated 19.11.1973 (Ex.D-2) passed by defendant no.1 regarding alleged donation of the suit land and other land. Defendants' case is that the said resolution was signed by Inderjit Singh and plaintiff- respondent Gurnam Singh also to affirm the donation of suit land and other land. However, this stand of the defendants is not substantiated. No witness has been examined to prove that the aforesaid resolution was signed by the plaintiff. Mewa Singh (DW-1) joined defendant no.1 in the year 1978, and therefore, his statement cannot prove that the aforesaid resolution dated 19.11.1973 was signed by the plaintiff . There is no other evidence led by the defendants to prove that plaintiff has signed the said resolution. On the contrary, defendant have not examined any person present at the time of passing of the said resolution to prove that the resolution was signed by the plaintiff. In addition to the aforesaid, if the suit land and other land had been donated vide resolution dated 19.11.1973, it would have been mentioned in subsequent gift deed of the year 1974, whereby plaintiff and Inderjit Singh donated other one acre land each. However, in the said gift deed, there is no mention of donation of the suit land and other land, in addition to one acre land each donated in the year 1974. Moreover, version R. S. A. No. 1614 of 2011 4 of the defendants based on resolution dated 19.11.1973 is falsified by their own pleadings. The defendants pleaded that one acre land each was donated by plaintiff and Inderjit Singh in the year 1974 and it was subsequent thereto that 10 feet land each on Eastern and Western sides (including the suit land) was donated. It means that alleged donation of suit land was subsequent to the donation made in the year 1974, but defendants are relying on resolution dated 19.11.1973, which was passed before the donation made in the year 1974. Non-incorporation of the suit land in the gift deed of 1974 completely negatives the defendants' version regarding donation of the suit land. Presence of plaintiff Gurnam Singh is also not recorded in the resolution Ex.D-2, although presence of Inderjit Singh is recorded. It would also depict that plaintiff was not present when the said resolution was passed. Defendants have also taken the plea of adverse possession of the suit land. This plea runs contradictory to the plea that the suit land was donated by the plaintiff and Inderjit Singh to the defendants. Defendants have also alleged that Bus Stand is running on 02 acres 02 kanals and 18 marlas land. However, addition of 10 feet land each on Eastern and Western sides of two acres land would not make two kanals and 18 marlas as additional land. Thus, the defendants are claiming additional land without any right, title or interest. On the contrary, plaintiff's case is proved from the revenue record depicting that plaintiff and other persons are co-sharers in possession of the suit land. R. S. A. No. 1614 of 2011 5 In view of aforesaid, concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by various reasons. The said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal because it is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Before parting with the order, prayer of learned counsel for the appellant, for grant of some time for acquisition of the suit land, has to be noticed. The said prayer cannot be accepted because lower appellate court in its judgment dated 11.11.2010 observed that the appellant may acquire the suit land. However, in spite thereof, the appellant has not taken any steps in that direction, although almost five months have elapsed since then. Consequently, no further time can be granted to the appellant by passing any interim direction of status quo, although the appellant shall be at liberty to acquire the suit land in accordance with law, if so advised. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 05, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE