R.S.A. No. 1834 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1834 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 01.05.2009 Surinder Rani ....appellant versus Krishana Devi ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plainitff/respondent, has been ordered to be decreed. The plaintiff/respondent brought a suit on the pleadings that the suit land/plot was purchased by the father of the plaintiff/respondent from Mulkh Raj by way of registered sale deed. The plot purchased was measuring 5 marlas, out of which plaintiff, being daughter, was entitled to 2 ½ marlas of plot. The suit was contested. The right of the plaintiff to inherit 2 ½ marlas of plot was not disputed. It was pleaded that the suit land, in fact, R.S.A. No. 1834 of 2009 (O&M) -2- had been given to defendant/appellant by way of gift deed, and the plaintiff/respondent has no right or interest in plot in dispute. The defendant/appellant failed to produce on record any gift deed or prove the assertions made to claim exclusive possession over the suit property. The learned Courts below, in view of the admission made by the defendant/appellant, that plaintiff/respondent was entitled to 2 ½ marlas of plot, decreed the suit and restrained the defendant/appellant from interfering in her possession. The concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below are sought to be challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant by raising the following substantial questions of law: - ''1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is perverse having ignored the admissible evidence on record, and is, thus, outcome of mis-reading of evidence? 2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was not maintainable in the present form?'' In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Courts below have decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent by ignoring the evidence, and also by taking into consideration the inadmissible evidence. In support thereof, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the decree passed by the learned Courts below, to contend that though the plaintiff/respondent claimed that she was entitled to injunction qua area falling in ABCD shown in the site plan, however, this site plan was not proved. R.S.A. No. 1834 of 2009 (O&M) -3- The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that the learned Courts below ignored that in cross-examination, the defendant/appellant had stated that the suit land did not belong to the plaintiff/respondent, and that, there was other documentary evidence showing that the suit land was not in possession of the plaintiff/respondent. On consideration of matter, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. The site plan was part of pleadings itself. In the suit it was clearly mentioned that the land shown in ABCD was in possession of the plaintiff/respondent, while remaining area was with the defendant/appellant. The total area purchased by father of the parties was 5 marlas, out of which each party was entitled to 2 ½ marla. Statements made in the cross-examination, could not be used to non-suit the plaintiff/respondent, when it was admitted by appellant that she was entitled to 2 ½ marla of land i.e. half share from the suit land, purchased by her father, and no gift deed was produced or proved the stand taken to defeat the claim raised in plaint. The substantial questions of law raised are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 01, 2009 R.S.