RSA No.1600 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1600 of 2008 Date of Decision:11.11.2008 Gurmail Kaur ....appellant Versus Surinder Kaur .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.H.S.Dhindsa,Advocate for the appellant Mr.Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby her suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering and dispossessing her forcibly and illegally from the suit property has been dismissed with costs. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff is in possession as owner of the property in dispute and she is using the said property as haveli for the last 12 years. The plaintiff Gurmail Kaur has purchased the property from Surinder Kaur(real sister of her husband)in the year 1986 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. After receiving the said amount, the defendant delivered possession to the plaintiff at the same time orally and no sale deed was executed. After that the plaintiff has constructed two room and two sheds and also installed fodder cutting machine in the suit property and also installed electric connection and water tap in the suit property and she is using the same as haveli. On the other hand, the defendant who has no right, title or concern with the suit property is threatening the plaintiff to RSA No.1600 of 2008 2 dispossess her forcibly. The plaintiff has requested many times to the defendant not to take the law in her own hands, but to no effect. Hence the present suit. Upon notice, the defendant appeared and filed written statement by denying the ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff over the property in dispute. The remaining averments regarding the purchase of property were also denied. It is submitted that the defendant is owner in possession and the plaintiff has no right in the suit property and no amount as alleged by the plaintiff has been received by the defendant. It is submitted that suit of the plaintiff is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. The Courts below after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the suit with costs. While dismissing the suit, the Courts below recorded a finding that the plaintiff though in possession has failed to prove her ownership over the property in dispute and therefore no injunction can be granted in favour of the true owner. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Lower Appellate Court has erred at law while holding that the appellant is not in possession of the suit property as there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that the plaintiff-appellant is in possession of the suit property. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is in possession of the suit property as gair marusi and therefore she cannot be dispossessed except in due course of law. Thus, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. RSA No.1600 of 2008 3 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment and decrees of the Courts below and has argued that a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded on a question of fact by the Courts below and therefore no substantial question of law arises in this case and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that she had purchased the property in dispute for a valuable consideration through some oral arrangement in the year 1986. However, there is no evidence to prove this assertion of the appellant. No doubt, vide Ex.P-12 i.e.order dated 29.10.1997 passed by Tehsildar, khasra girdawari was ordered to be corrected in the name of the appellant, however, this document is not sufficient to prove the case of the appellant. A perusal of the record depicts that the present suit was instituted on 01.10.1997 and order of correction in khasra girdawari was made ex parte on 29.10.1997 during the pendency of the present suit. Even in the civil suit filed by the appellant, no mention has been made regarding this application for the correction of khasra girdawari. No doubt, Ex.P-12 has been exhibited on record, however, mere exhibition of a document does not dispense with its mode of proof. The order Ex.P-12 has not been proved in accordance with the law. Except Ex.P-12, there is no other evidence on record to support the argument of the learned counsel that the appellant has been recorded as gair marusi tenant in the land in dispute. Moreover, this plea of the appellant is beyond her pleadings. In any case, the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding that appellant is not in possession of the suit RSA No.1600 of 2008 4 property. The controversy in hand whether appellant is in possession of the suit property or not, is a question of fact, which has been held to be against the appellant by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 11.11.2008 neenu