IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.375 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 29.1.2010 Jagmal Singh ....Appellant Versus Dev Dutt and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.1065-C-2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.375 of 2010 The plaintiff-appellant filed the instant appeal against the judgments of the learned trial court dated 28.1.2008 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 23.12.2009. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant that he was owner in possession of the suit property, which he failed to prove. The defendant-respondents, on the other hand, had pleaded themselves to be in possession of the suit property since long. The following issues were struck on the pleadings of the parties :- R.S.A.No.375 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit property?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit is time barred?OPD 6. Relief. From the evidence which has come on record it becomes abundantly clear that the plaintiff-appellant failed to establish the correct identity of the property on which he was claiming his possession. The Local Commissioner's report did not support the case of the plaintiff-appellant. That apart, the clincher in the issue is that prior to the filing of the instant suit the present appellant also filed civil suit bearing No.41 of 1997 with a similar prayer against the present respondents and in that suit a site plan was appended to the plaint which is corresponding to the one which was placed on record in the present proceedings. In the earlier suit the appellant had failed to prove his possession and the trial court had returned findings against him vide judgment dated 15.10.2003 which were affirmed by the first Appellate Court on 28.7.2004. In the site plan which was attached to the present suit the property though depicted to be the same which was described by the respondents in their written statement as Ahata No.37,Ghar No.41 and shown in red R.S.A.No.375 of 2010 (O&M) -3- colour and marked with letters ABCD in the site plan. It was thus imperative for the plaintiff-appellant to produce adequate evidence to show that the property which was depicted in the site plan was distinct from the one on which judicial findings had been invited by him in the earlier suit. No demarcation was got carried out and therefore the appellant failed to prove his case conclusively. Besides, the findings in the earlier suit would also operate against the appellant in view of the fact that the site plan of the earlier suit and the present suit corresponded with each other. In view of the concurrent finding of fact regarding possession having been returned by the courts below and in the absence of any substantial question of law, I do not deem it appropriate to exercise any jurisdiction pursuant to Section100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the regular second appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 29.1.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss