IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 4369 of 2008 Date of decision: 31.3.2009 Shakuntla Devi … Appellant Versus Rakesh … Respondent Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the appellant … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Appellant before this Court was the plaintiff who has been non-suited by the Courts below in a suit for permanent injunction and in the alternative, for mandatory injunction, for restraining the defendant from interfering or dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in dispute. Plaintiff in her suit pleaded that she had purchased the suit land from Phool Kanwar son of Rishal Singh. She alleged that defendant was a stranger and had no concern with the suit plot or with Khasra No. 2902 and thus, had no right, title or interest in the suit property. She alleged that the defendant threatened to encroach upon and to raise construction over the suit property forcibly and illegally. Hence, the suit. Upon notice of the suit, the defendant took the plea that he had purchased a plot of 200 sq. yards in Khasra No.2901 from one Krishan Kumar son of Bhagat Singh for a consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- and in that respect, mutation was duly sanctioned in his favour. Further, he also got the land demarcated on 29.10.2003 and thereafter, he constructed boundary wall thereon besides getting installed electricity and water connections. He denied that he was a stranger and was having no concern with Khasra No.2902. He alleged that the husband of the plaintiff was a Sub Inspector in Haryana Police, due to which the plaintiff started threatening him. Upon appraisal of the evidence the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 19.7.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal which also RSA No. 4369 of 2008 -2- met the same fate and was dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 3.9.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the plaintiff. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have returned a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has not been able to establish that the defendant had ever encroached upon the plot comprised in Khasra No.2902 or that he himself is the owner of the plot where his construction exists. As regards the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant after alleged encroachment had constructed a boundary wall, the same has been negatived by the Courts below holding that in the event of defendant acting in the manner as alleged by the plaintiff, he (plaintiff) would certainly have moved the Court under Order 39 rule 2A CPC for alleged violation of status quo order, which however, was not done. Moreover, the plaintiff while stepping into the witness box has herself admitted that the defendant had raised the boundary wall of his own plot but in the second breath, she stated that boundary wall was raised over her plot after filing of the suit and thus, was not sure of the factual position at the spot. On the contrary, defendant in order to substantiate his plea produced in evidence copy of receipt dated 14.1.2004, Ex.D4, so issued by the Public Health Department to prove that he had deposited Rs.27,010/- on account of water connection. The order of status-quo is dated 21.2.2004. Thus, the said receipt clearly shows that defendant was in possession before passing of the status quo order, which further falsifies the plea of the plaintiff that it was during the pendency of the suit that the defendant had encroached upon the plot in dispute. A perusal of Ex.P1 i.e sale deed shows that in the East of the plot purchased by the plaintiff vide this very sale deed, a plot of other owner has been shown in the West, in the North a Raasta of 20 feet has been shown while in the South plot of other owner has been shown. Thus, from the sale deed Ex.P-1 it cannot be said that this is the plot detailed and scribed in para No.1 of the plaint and bounded as East- house of Kanshi Ram, West-Raasta 20 Feet, North-house of Harbhajan and South-house of Harish Chawla which was purchased vide sale deed Ex.P1. Moreover, the plaintiff when stepped into the witness-box has stated that in the West there is house of Khushi Ram and in the South there is house of Harish Chawla which boundaries do not tally with the one given in RSA No. 4369 of 2008 -3- para No.1 of the plaint. The Courts below though have observed that the defendant and the witnesses produced by him have not been able to tell the exact boundaries of the plot over which the defendant raised construction but have held that no benefit therefrom can be derived by the plaintiff since it is a well settled law that the plaintiff is to stand on his or her own legs and he /she cannot extract any weightage from the weakness of the case of the defendant. Thus, the defendant has led clinching evidence to prove that he had raised construction over the plot which he purchased vide sale deed Ex.D-1 comprised in Khasra No.2901. No illegality or perversity is shown to have been committed by the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. No question of law much less substantial arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 31, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE