RSA No.1663 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1663 of 2009 Date of decision : 11-08-2010 Jagir Chand @ Jagiri Ram ....Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Rakesh K.Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration and in the alternative for confirmation of possession of the suit land, was dismissed. Plaintiff-appellant preferred this suit mainly on the averments that Amar Singh and Banta Singh who had migrated from Pakistan were allotted land in dispute in the year 1952 in lieu of the land left by them in Pakistan. The said allotment was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur. Banta Singh died issueless and his share was inherited by Amar Singh. The land of Banta Singh and Amar Singh in Pakistan was lying mortgaged with the Government. The appellant being power of attorney holder of Amar Singh deposited a sum of Rs.1653/- in the Treasury Office, Hoshiarpur. During the consolidation of holdings, Khasra No.119 was converted into new Khasra No.725/2 in the revenue record. The RSA No.1663 of 2009 -2- appellant remained in possession of the property in dispute as power of attorney holder of the original allottees. Since Amar Singh was absolute owner in possession of the property and the appellant is his power of attorney, respondent has no right, title or interest in the property in dispute and the entries made in the revenue record in favour of Punjab Government were liable to be corrected in the name of Amar Singh. Hence the suit. Upon notice, although respondent was served but none came present on behalf of the respondent and consequently the State of Punjab was proceeded against ex parte. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove as to how he became owner in possession of the suit land and there was no evidence to corroborate his testimony and, thus, dismissed the suit. Even the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant before the Lower Appellate Court was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 10.12.2008. Still not satisfied, the appellant has approached this Court by way of instant appeal submitting that the Courts below have erred at law while not taking into consideration the evidence on record which has resulted into perversity of the findings. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. While dismissing the suit of the appellant, the Courts below have held that the appellant has not adduced cogent and clinching evidence to prove his case. No evidence has been placed on record RSA No.1663 of 2009 -3- to prove that Amar Singh and Banta Singh were owners of some property in Pakistan and property in dispute was allotted to them in lieu of their land in Pakistan. Furthermore, there was no documentary evidence to prove that the property owned by Amar Singh and Banta Singh in Pakistan was mortgaged. The deposit of Rs.1653/- in the Treasury is no proof of the mortgage of the land by Amar Singh and Banta Singh. It was further found that there is nothing on record that after consolidation, Khasra No.119 alleged to have been allotted to Amar Singh was converted into new Khasra No.725/2 and the appellant failed to place on record any document vide which the property in dispute was allotted to Amar Singh. Ex.P-8 copy of the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 depicts that the property in dispute stands in the name of Provincial Government and the same is under the possession of the Forest Department. Appellant has failed to place on record any copy of jamabandi or khasra girdawari showing that earlier to that the appellant and Amar Singh were shown to be owner or in possession of the property in dispute. In view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the appellant. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) 11-08-2010 JUDGE manju