R. S. A. No. 4634 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 4634 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 21, 2011 Ravi Kumar alias Ravi Bhandari .... Appellant Vs. Lakhbir Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Lakhbir Singh against defendant-appellant Ravi Kumar for possession of the suit land measuring 04 marlas 06 sarsais stands decreed by both the courts below on the basis of plaintiff's title. The defendant-appellant claimed his possession as owner since the year 1947. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the suit property from heirs of Bahadur Singh, who was owner of the suit land, vide sale deeds R. S. A. No. 4634 of 2010 2 dated 23.07.2002 and 30.07.2002. The plaintiff has placed on record copy of jamabandi depicting that Bahadur Singh was owner of the suit land. He has also produced sale deeds depicting that he purchased it from heirs of Bahadur Singh. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit land on 11.09.2002. The suit was filed on 03.10.2002. The defendant's stand that he is in possession since 1947 stands falsified by his own evidence. Even the defendant was not aged 55 years, the period that elapsed since the year 1947 till 2002. On the other hand, defendant's witnesses namely Manohar Singh (DW-1), Sukhraj Singh (DW-2), Lakhbir Singh (DW-4) and Bheera Singh (DW-6) admitted that defendant is in possession of the suit land since September 2002 and thus, corroborated the plaintiff's version that he was dispossessed by the defendant in September 2002. Prem Singh (DW-3) did not even know as to what has been recorded in his affidavit of examination-in-chief. Sucha Singh (DW-5) stated in his cross-examination that he did not know Bahadur Singh, although in examination-in-chief, he mentioned about Bahadur Singh. Bheera Singh (DW-6) admitted that suit property was previously owned by Bahadur Singh and after his death, it was inherited by his children. This evidence of the defendant himself again corroborates the plaintiff's case. Even the defendant himself stated that he has no documentary proof to prove his ownership. He has also stated that he did not know Bahadur Singh or his legal heirs, although in affidavit of R. S. A. No. 4634 of 2010 3 examination-in-chief, he stated about Bahadur Singh and his legal heirs. Defendant was examined on 21.09.2005 and he stated in affidavit of examination-in-chief that he was in possession of suit property since 1947 i.e. for 58 years, but he stated his own age as 50 years only. There is also no document on record that defendant is in possession of suit property for any length of period. He is not recorded to be in possession of suit property in the revenue record. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. There is no illegality or perversity in the concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below. The plaintiff has fully established his case, whereas the defendant's defence has been found to be completely false and demolished by his own witnesses. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. February 21, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE