RSA No. 66 of 2009(O&M) -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: September 17, 2009 1. RSA No. 66 of 2009 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Malkiat Singh and others ...... Respondents 2. RSA No. 284 of 2009 (O&M) Gurdev Singh and others .... Appellants Versus Malkiat Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing RSA Nos. 66 of 2009 and 284 of 2009 since they both arise out of the same judgment. The facts are being taken from RSA No.66 of 2009 which are as under:- The present appeal arises out of the civil suit filed by the respondents seeking possession of the land in dispute which had been transferred to them by way of sale certificate issued in their favour. The RSA No. 66 of 2009(O&M) -2 case of the appellants was that they had purchased the land from one Aas Kaur. Both the Courts below held that the respondents had been validly issued the sale certificate by the Rehabilitation Department under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1951 and further that the vendor of the appellants (Aas Kaur) did not have valid title in the property. The following questions have been proposed:- i) As to whether in a suit for possession a plaintiff can succeed without proving his title and obtain the possession of the land from a person in settled possession? ii)As to whether a defendant is also bound in law to prove his title even when the plaintiff has failed to prove his title to the suit? iii)As to whether the plaintiff can even take advantage of the weakness of a defendant case and is not bound in law to prove his own case independently? iv)As to whether the document Ex.P/3 relied upon by the plaintiffs can be treated as a document of title pertaining to the suit land even though the same does not contain ny details or description of the suit property? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or on such misreading of evidence so as to liable for interference under Section 100 C.P.C. Consequently these appeals as well as the applications for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 17, 2009 sunita