IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1184 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.3.2009 Ganda Singh … Appellant Versus Sukhdev Ram and others … Respondents Present: Mr. P.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant … ARVIND KUMAR, J: Appellant before this Court was the defendant who lost concurrently before the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiffs for possession of land comprised of Khewat/Khatauni No. 51/104 Khasra No. 350/8/0-1 Pukhta as shown in the jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 of village Changal, was decreed. Plaintiffs brought the present suit stating therein that the plaintiffs along with other co-sharers are owners of the suit land and have constructed a Verandah thereon while the remaining land is being used by them for placing debris. However, the defendant forcibly took possession of the said land from them. According to the plaintiffs, they are entitled to take back the possession of the suit land. Upon notice of the suit, written statement was filed by the defendant taking the plea therein that the suit land had been purchased by him for a consideration of Rs.1500/- vide sale- deed dated 15.3.1983 from one Mehar Singh son of Deva Singh and since then, he is in possession of the land purchased by him. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, vide its judgment and decree dated 22.2.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. An appeal was preferred by the defendant against the said judgment and decree but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7.11.2008. Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced on record by the parties including documentary evidence in the shape of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, Exhibit P-1, and khasra girdawari for the crops 2000-03, Exhibit P-2, have concurrently held that RSA No. 1184 of 2009 -2- the plaintiffs are the real owners in possession of the suit land. Moreover, the office Kanungo appointed as Local Commissioner by the trial Court to demarcate the said khasra number, also gave report Exhibit P-5 stating therein that on visiting the spot, he found the defendant to be in possession of the suit land comprised of khasra No. 350//8-0/1. Along with the said report, he also submitted copy of site plan, Exhibit P-6, in which site of khasra No. 350//8-0/1 has been shown and the said land is shown to be the ownership of the plaintiffs and others and in possession of the defendant. The plea of the defendant that the demarcation was conducted by the Local Commissioner in his absence, also did not find favour with the Courts below since on perusal of presence-memo. Exhibit P-7 prepared by the Local Commissioner clearly showed that the defendant was very much present at the spot at the time of said demarcation. Thus, the Courts below have rightly held the plaintiffs to be owners of the suit land of which the defendant was found to be in illegal possession. Nothing has been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby dismissed in limine. March 20, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE