RSA No.2732 of 2006 (O & M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2732 of 2006 (O & M) Date of decision: 04.03.2010 Balwant @ Balwan Singh @ Balwan ..Defendant-Appellants Versus Rakesh and others ..Contesting Plaintiff-Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.N.D.Singla, Advocate for the appellant Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in their possession over property bearing Ahata No.19 and 20 situated in the abadi of Village Chhapra Salimpur, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh. The suit was filed on the allegation that originally, the property in dispute was owned by Mansa and Sada as per Khasra abadi drawn as Ex.P-4. Ex.P-5 was pedigree table which showed that the respondents were successors- in-interest of the aforesaid Mansa and Sada. On this basis, the respondents prayed for protection of their possesion over the suit property from the appellant. The appellant in his written statement claimed that the property was owned by one Duli Chand and he had willed it in favour of the respondents No.8 to 11 and that the appellant had purhcased the same from the said respodents. The Courts below came to concurrent finding of RSA No.2732 of 2006 (O & M) :2: fact that the appellant had not established the title of Duli Chand over the property in dispute whereas the respondents were able to prove their title through Mansa and Sada. Consequently, the suit of the respondents, as mentioned above, was decreed. The following questions have been proposed:- (a) Whether without getting demarcation of the property in dispute it could possibly be held by the courts below that the property in dispute was the same which was allotted Ahata No.19 and 20 in the year 1930 at the time of consolidation ? (b) Whether the two courts below had not gravely erred in taking into consideration the Will mark- A of Heera son of Toda and in recording a finding regarding the ownership and possession of the property in dispute on the basis of this Will mark-A which had not been legally and validly proved ? (c) Whether it could possibly be held that the defendant-appellant had miserably failed to prove the ownership and possession simply because he could not produce the document of title of his predecessor regarding his property which was admittedly situated within the old abadi of the village when undeniably there are no documents of title regarding the property situated in the old abadi of the village ? (d) Whether the learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul had gravely erred in dismissing the application of the defendant-appellant for leading additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC ? (e) Whether the appreciation of evidence and the law applicable to such cases was mis-appreciated and misconstrued by the courts below ? It would be seen that all questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of the Courts below but has not been able me to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading RSA No.2732 of 2006 (O & M) :3: of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. In the circumstances, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main appeal is decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. March 4, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE