RSA No. 1753 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1753 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.4.2011. Subegh Singh .......Appellant Vs. Bhagwanti ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that she was owner of the suit land measuring 3 Marlas. Plaintiff had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 12.3.2004 from Surinder Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar. Mutation was duly sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed. Defendant had forcibly occupied the suit property in August, 1999 by dispossessing the husband of the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement, averred that the plaintiff was not owner of the suit property. Defendant had constructed his house in the year 1990. As per the assessment register for the year 1994-1995, it was evident that the room belonging to the defendant had been constructed by him on the RSA No. 1753 of 2011 (O&M) -2- site in dispute. Thereafter, more construction had been raised by the defendant. Defendant had got electricity connection in the year 1993 and had also got water supply connection. The alleged sale deed dated 12.3.2004 was not with regard to the house of the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the suit property, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued for purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present case? OPD 6. Relief.” Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.2011. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. RSA No. 1753 of 2011 (O&M) -3- Plaintiff filed the suit for possession alleging that she was owner of the suit property. The plaintiff based reliance on the sale deed dated 12.3.2004 (Ex.P-2). Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that the suit property had been purchased by the plaintiff vide sale deed (Ex. P-2). Vide sale deed (Ex. P-2), plaintiff had purchased 3 Marlas of land out of land measuring 3 Kanals 7 Marlas bearing Khasra no. 13//9/2(1-3), 11/1min(0-13), 12/1(1-11) for a consideration of `. 81,000/- from Surinder Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar. As per the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2000-2001, Surinder Kumar and Sanjiv Kumar were depicted to be having 3/67 share in the land measuring 3 Kanals 7 Marlas. As per the sale deed (Ex. P-2), 3 Marlas of land, purchased by the plaintiff was bounded as under:- East: 17'-6” street West: 16'-6” Sahpur Wale North: 47' street South: 47' Lokraj The case of the defendant, on the other hand, was that he was not in possession of the suit property, purchased by the plaintiff. As per the copy of the assessment register for the year 1994-1995 placed on record by the defendant, he was in possession of the property measuring 15' x 30'. The said property, thus, does not tally with the dimensions of the suit property measuring 3 Marlas. Thus, the defendant had failed to establish that he was in possession of the property, owned by him. Rather, the plaintiff had been successful in establishing RSA No. 1753 of 2011 (O&M) -4- that she had purchased the suit property vide sale deed (Ex. P-2). In these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to get back the possession of the suit property, owned by her as the same was in illegal possession of the defendant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 20, 2011 Gurpreet