R.S.A. No. 4660 of 2009 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 4660 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2009 Chanderpati and another …..Appellants Vs. Ram Kumar …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Alok Jain, Advocate for the appellants. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in re- filing of the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. This is defendants’ second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below in favour of plaintiff- appellant restraining the defendant- appellants from interfering in plot No.A/11/1 having an area of 133.33 sq. yards described in the heading of the plaint. R.S.A. No. 4660 of 2009 (O&M) [2] Counsel for the appellants has argued that the plaintiff- respondent has not been able to establish that he is the legal heir of the original owner Anaro Devi. After hearing counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal warranting interference in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below. I am further of the opinion that the plaintiff had described himself as son of Banarsi Dass who was the husband of Anaro Devi. While denying the relationship of plaintiff to Anaro Devi it was not specifically put-forth by the defendant- appellants as to who else was the father or mother of the plaintiff. Counsel for the appellant has further argued that an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to establish the sale deed in favour of Anaro Devi by production of PW1, PW2 and PW3 who have admitted in their cross- examination that they were not present at the time of the execution of the sale deed. The sale deed being a registered document conferring title on the mother of plaintiff- respondent, has been proved by producing on record the certified copy of the original registered sale deed. A presumption of truth is attached to a document like this which has bee prepared in the ordinary course of business by the administrative authorities. Besides this, the Courts below have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the defendants have constructed their wall and R.S.A. No. 4660 of 2009 (O&M) [3] encroached upon the plot to the extent of 5 ft in width and 80 ft. in length as such they are bound to remove the said encroachment. Counsel for the appellants has not been able to establish the rights of the defendants in the property in dispute as such no ground is made out for interfering in the said observations made by the Courts below. Dismissed. December 16, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE