RSA No.4067 of 2010 (O & M) - 1 – IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4067 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011 Ravinder Singh ……Appellant Versus Ram Chander and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.12125-C of 2010 This is application for condonation of delay of 496 days in re-filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that the said delay occurred because appellant’s counsel shifted his office from one house to another house and in this process, the paper book was misplaced. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the averment made in the application. However, I find no merit in the said averment. Long delay of more than 16 months cannot be condoned on such vague, general and specious averment made in the application. The said averment taken at face value does not make any ground much less sufficient ground for condonation of long delay RSA No.4067 of 2010 (O & M) - 2 – of more than 16 months. In this context, it is most significant to notice that the applicant-appellant has very cleverly omitted to even mention in the application as to when the office of the counsel was shifted. Such long delay if condoned on the basis of virtually no ground, would completely defeat the purpose of prescribing limitation period. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant application which is accordingly dismissed. CM No.12126-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main appeal. Since application for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal has been dismissed, the appeal is liable to dismissal on this ground. However, even on merits, the appellant cannot succeed. Ravinder Singh-plaintiff having lost in both the Courts below has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that he along with defendant set No.3 (defendants/respondents No.15 and 16) are joint owner in possession of 1/4th share in 7 kanals land out of total land measuring 74 kanals 6 marlas in view of Sanad Takseem dated 03.05.1988 and judgment and decree dated 15.10.1991 passed in civil suit No.472 of 01.10.1991 titled as ‘Mahender etc. versus Arjun etc.’ The plaintiff also sought declaration that he and defendant set No.3 are joint owners in possession of 1/4th share of 74 kanals 6 marlas land and supplementary sale deed dated 13.10.1992 regarding specific 7 kanals land out of it executed by defendant set No.1 in favour of defendant set No.2 is null and void and not binding RSA No.4067 of 2010 (O & M) - 3 – on the plaintiff. It was pleaded that defendant set No.2 was owner of 55 kanals 14 marlas land being 3/4th share of 74 kanals 6 marlas joint land. Consequently, defendant set No.2 had no right to transfer land of specific khasra numbers out of the joint land vide sale deed dated 13.10.1992. It was also pleaded that defendant set No.2 had already transferred 48 kanals 2 marlas land vide judgment and decree dated 30.07.1990 and sale deeds dated 21.08.1991 and 15.04.1991. Defendant set No.2 was thus left with 7 kanals 12 marlas land. Defendant No.14 was owner of 2 kanals 11 marlas land, but he has sold 5 kanals land. Defendant set Nos.1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. It was denied that the suit land was joint land. It was pleaded that suit land had already been partitioned. After partition, defendant No.12 sold the suit land to defendant set No.1. Defendant set No.2 also has right to alienate the suit land. However, defendant set No.3 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narwana vide judgment and decree dated 18.07.2007 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. RSA No.4067 of 2010 (O & M) - 4 – Claim of the plaintiff is that he and defendant set No.3 are joint owners in possession of 1/4th share of 74 kanals 6 marlas land on the basis of Sanad Takseem dated 03.05.1988 and judgment and decree dated 15.10.1991. However, the said documents have not even been produced in evidence to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. Consequently, adverse presumption arises against the plaintiff. In addition to it, even jamabandi of the suit land has not been produced in evidence to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff that he along with defendant set No.3 is joint owner in possession of 1/4th share of 74 kanals 6 marlas land. Oral evidence led by the plaintiff is not sufficient to establish the claim of the plaintiff regarding ownership and possession of the agricultural land for which documentary evidence is available, but has been withheld, giving rise to strong adverse inference against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not led any documentary evidence to depict that the suit land had not been partitioned. On the other hand, the very fact that the plaintiff himself pleaded Sanad Takseem dated 03.05.1988 would depict that the joint land stood partitioned. Consequently, contention of learned counsel for the appellant that it was for the defendant set Nos.1 and 2 to prove partition cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has claimed joint ownership in the suit land, but has failed to prove any document in evidence to substantiate his claim. In the absence of jamabandi etc., it cannot be said that plaintiff is joint owner in possession of the suit land along with defendant set No.3 to the extent of 1/4th share. Even copy of sale deed dated 13.10.1992, which is under challenge in the suit, has not been placed on record. RSA No.4067 of 2010 (O & M) - 5 – From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the plaintiff has miserably failed to substantiate his claim. Concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons recorded by the Courts below. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is completely devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 23.02.2011 A.kaundal