IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1364 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011. Subhash Chander Anand. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Des Raj and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.10.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 12.12.2005 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Balanchaur, vide which suit of present appellant- plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.1364 of 2010 Briefly stated, the present suit was filed by appellant-plaintiff for possession on the ground that he is owner of the premises in dispute by way of purchase vide sale deed dated 01.06.1988. Suit was contested by respondents- defendants denying title of present appellant-plaintiff and claimed to be owners in possession of the same. Suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that contradictory plea has been taken by respondents-defendants as on the one hand, they are claiming to be owners in possession since their forefathers and on the other hand, they claimed possession through Punjab Wakf Board. However, admittedly respondents-defendants are in possession of the premises in dispute. Hence, in order to succeed, appellant-plaintiff is to prove title over the property in dispute. Learned courts below came to the conclusion that appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the same. The sale deed on which reliance has been placed by appellant-plaintiff do not relate to the property in dispute. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial 2 RSA No.1364 of 2010 question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 5, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3