Regular Second Appeal No. 1781 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1781 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 01, 2008 Surinder Pal Singh .....APPELLANT VERSUS Bashir Masih and Another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Mr N.S.Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S .MANN, J. Suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiff/respondent so as to restrain the defendants/appellant from interfering in his possession and from dispossessing him out of the house in dispute was decreed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moga on 21.3.2006. Appeal filed against the same by the defendants was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Moga on 20.2.2008. Still aggrieved, Surinder Pal Singh (Surinder Singh)-defendant has filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the plaintiff/respondent was that the house in question was owned by United Church of Northern India Trust Association (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”) and under his Regular Second Appeal No. 1781 of 2008 -2- occupation since 1965. He constructed the house and a shop therein, measuring about 7½ marlas. One Joginder Pal Jain purchased the suit property from the Association vide registered sale deed dated 1.9.1994. On finding the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property, said Joginder Pal Jain sold 5 marlas 3½ sarsahies of vacant land out of total suit property measuring 13 marlas to him for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed dated 3.10.1994. In spite of the same, both the defendants, who had no concern with the suit property were threatening to interfere in his peaceful possession. The defendants admitted the plaintiff to have purchased 5 marlas 3 sarsahies of land from Joginder Pal Jain and to be in possession of the portion shown in red colour between the green and yellow colours in the site plan. However, the portion shown with yellow and red colours formed Khasra No.565. The Association leased out the said Khasra measuring 5 K-19 M to one Daniel for the period from 3.10.1993 to 29.10.2091. Said Daniel was authorized to further lease out the property to anyone. Accordingly, Daniel entered into an agreement on 5.7.1996 under which he gave the property on lease to the defendants. They were in possession of the same which was shown in yellow colour in the site plan. They were continuing to be in peaceful possession of the suit property. They also reconstructed the shop about 6 months ago. Daniel, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff regarding the Regular Second Appeal No. 1781 of 2008 -3- suit property. He based his claim on the lease deed, said to have been executed by the Association in his favour. The suit was, however, dismissed. Daniel was not found to be in possession of the suit property. He failed to prove the lease deed, said to have been executed in his favour by the Association. On the other hand, the plaintiff was found in possession of the suit property. When Daniel had no right to the suit property, he could not pass on its possession to the defendants. Jamabandi Ex.P4 and mutation Ex.P2 also supported the claim of the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property. Moreover, even one of the defendants stated during his cross-examination that the plaintiff was living in the suit property from the year 1965 onwards. As regards the argument on behalf of the appellant that the portion shown in yellow and red colours bear Khasra No.565 and the defendants were in possession of the yellow portion, one needs to refer to the site plan. Learned trial Court referred to the site plan to observe that there was no yellow portion shown in the same. This takes the wind out of the sails of the defendants. Report Ex.D2 given by DW-2 Harbans Singh Halqa Kanungo cannot be relied upon as it did not give the details of Khasra Nos.566, 567 and 568. He only stated that the property shown in red and green colours fell in Khasra No.565. Regular Second Appeal No. 1781 of 2008 -4- In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below. The substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, do not arise for consideration. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. July 01, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds JUDGE