IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1329 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 28, 2008 Rattan Singh ....Appellant Versus Nain Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anand Kumar Bishnoi, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned trial Court and so also his appeal by learned first appellate Court. Aggrieved of the same, he has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. With a view to obtaining the relief claimed by him in his suit, the appellant was required to prove that the property in question was ancestral. In that regard, he examined two witnesses, namely, Shyama PW1 and Dharam Pal PW2 by tendering their affidavits. However, these two witnesses were not produced for their cross- examination. In such a situation, the contents of their affidavits could not be treated as evidence and therefore, rightly ruled out of Regular Second Appeal No. 1329 of 2008 consideration. The plaintiff also appeared as his own witness as PW3 and deposed that the land in question was his ancestral and he was in possession of the same. Apart from his oral testimony, there is no documentary evidence in support of his plea. Neither there is any title deed nor any revenue record produced to show that the property in question was ever possessed by his father or forefathers. The defendant-respondent relied upon the compromise- deed Ex.D1, which was arrived at before the Panchayat. It was claimed to have been signed by both the parties. It was stated therein that the defendant was the owner and in possession of the property, whereas the plaintiff-appellant had no concern with the same. It was also recorded therein that in case the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendant, the latter would give up his rights. According to the defendant, the said amount was never paid. The appellant tried to wriggle out of the compromise-deed Ex. D1 by taking up a plea in his grounds of appeal that the defendant could recover the amount of Rs. 15,000/- by filing a suit but he could not lay any claim to the property in question. This stand of the appellant in his grounds of appeal has been practically taken by the learned first appellate Court to be an admission of the fact that a settlement had taken place between the parties. - 2 Regular Second Appeal No. 1329 of 2008 While filing the plaint, the appellant nowhere mentioned about any compromise having been effected between the parties. Neither he paid the amount stated therein nor he challenged it. It is, thus, clear that he failed to prove his possession over the property in question. The conclusions arrived at by the learned lower Courts are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. No case is made out for disturbing the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arise for determination in the present appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) April 28, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO - 3