R.S.A. No. 4883 of 2001 [Page numbers] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4883 of 2001(O&M) Date of decision: 5.11.2008 Partap Singh ..Appellant v. Radha Kishan and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree of the learned court below, whereby that of the trial Court was reversed and the suit for possession filed by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of plot No. 30, situated near Water Works, Hissar by removal of Malba. The property in dispute was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 24.11.1972 and after purchasing the same, foundations were also laid. However, in November, 1979, the respondents-defendants took forcible possession thereof and raised further construction. The suit was filed on 21.1.1987, i.e., 7 years after the alleged illegal dispossession of the appellant-plaintiff. The claim set up by the appellant- plaintiff was disputed by the respondents-defendants by stating that the site plan produced on record by him was not correct as per spot. The situation of plot was shown wrongly. The trial court decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Before the lower Appellate Court, the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed. It was for the reason that the learned court below found that the appellant-plaintiff had not been able to establish the exact location of the plot, the possession of which was sought by him. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submitted that purchase of plot No. 30 by the appellant-plaintiff is not disputed by the parties. Keeping that fact in view and the site plan, produced by him on record, he was entitled to the relief prayed for by him. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. No doubt, the learned court below has recorded a finding that the appellant-plaintiff had purchased plot No 30 vide sale deed dated R.S.A. No. 4883 of 2001 [Page numbers] 14.11.1972. However, it was found that site plan (Ex. P1), produced on record by PW1- Thakar Narain Singh could not clearly establish the location of plot No. 30 for the reason that he admitted in his cross-examination that he never carried out exact measurements at the spot. He could not tell the exact location of plots No. 27, 28 and 30. It was further admitted by him that the site plan was prepared by him merely on the basis of 5-6 sale deeds. Other site plan (Ex. D3) also did not clearly establish the location of the plot, as even the witness who had prepared the site plan could not state as to on what basis it was prepared. The best piece of evidence in the form of site plan prepared by coloniser- Baldev, who had carved out the colony, was not produced. It could certainly establish the exact location of the plots in the area. Once the location of the property, the possession of which was sought by the appellant-plaintiff in the suit, was not clearly established, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in non-suiting the appellant-plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.11.2008 mk