R.S.A.No.1837 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1837 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Seebo and another ......Appellants Versus Satya Rani .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Krishan Sehajpal,Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that the house in dispute bearing No.1 had been allotted to her by the State. All the requisite instalments had been paid by the plaintiff along with interest. The plaintiff was in possession of the house in dispute as owner. On 25.4.2003, the defendants had taken possession of the suit property forcibly. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that in fact, the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. The house in dispute was allotted to Darshan Ram, who was husband of R.S.A.No.1837 of 2011 (O&M) 2 defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2. After his death, defendants had become owners in possession of the house in dispute. Darshan Ram was also recorded as co-owner qua khasra No.48//16 (6-11), 133 (11-11). On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the house as detailed in the heading of the plaint? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ? OPD 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is barred by his act, conduct and omission from filing the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties ? OPD 6. Relief.” The Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 31.5.2010 passed by the District Judge. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The plaintiff examined PW-2 Gurchetan Ram, BDPO in R.S.A.No.1837 of 2011 (O&M) 3 respect of her case. The said witness deposed that he had brought summoned record relating to house No.1. The said house was allotted to plaintiff Satya Devi. As per notice Ex.PW2/A dated 7.9.1985, the plaintiff was required to make payment of the consideration amount qua the house and get the sale deed executed. Plaintiff had deposited ` 875/- and ` 1,000/- towards sale consideration. Although the said witness, in his cross-examination, deposed that there was no record regarding the execution of the sale deed of any house in favour of the plaintiff but from the testimony of this witness, it is evident that the house in question was allotted to the plaintiff and she had deposited the requisite sale consideration. On the other hand, defendants had failed to establish any document regarding the allotment of the house in question to them. In these circumstances, learned first Appellate Court rightly held that the plaintiff was owner of the suit property in dispute and the defendants had taken illegal possession of the suit property. Since the plaintiff was owner of the suit property, she was entitled to seek possession of the same. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 02, 2011 anita