RSA No.4074 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4074 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.10.2009 Boota Singh .....Appellant Vs. Darshan Singh and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. S.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J The appellant challenges judgements and decrees dated 29.4.2004 and 8.8.2008, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa and the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, respectively, dismissing his suit and appeal. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his ownership and possession over house bearing municipal number 20/594. The appellant alleges that he has become owner in possession of the suit land by way of judgement and decree dated 13.12.1996 suffered by his father, transferring the suit property to him. It is prayed that as the respondents have no right, title or interest in the suit property, they should be retrained from interfering in his possession. In response, the respondents filed a written statement averring RSA No.4074 of 2008 2 that they are not bound by the decree dated 13.12.1996, as Tara Singh had no right, title or interest that could be transferred to the appellant. Darshan Singh, respondent no.1 had filed a suit against Tara Singh, who claimed ownership by adverse possession. However, the suit was decided in favour of Darshan Singh. The appeal was dismissed on 2.9.1993 and the second appeal was dismissed on 7.2.1994 by the High Court. Darshan Singh, thereafter, sold the suit property to Naib Singh,respondent no.2, who is owner in possession. After framing issues and calling upon parties to lead evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. Tara Singh had no right, title or interest in the suit property that he could transfer by a decree in favour of the appellant. It was also held that possession was handed over to Darshan Singh in execution of warrants of possession and, therefore, the appellant could not claim to be in possession. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree dated 29.4.2004, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 8.8.2008, the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below have committed an error while holding that the property subject matter of the sale deed dated 4.12.1996 and the decree dated 13.12.1996 are the same. The properties bear different municipal numbers namely; 20/594 owned by the appellant and 6/337/A owned by the respondent. The courts below have ignored the evidence on record and have, therefore, committed an error in recording that the old municipal number 6/337/A was changed to 20/594. It is further submitted that Ex.P-13 contains an admission, on the part of RSA No.4074 of 2008 3 respondent no.1 that the two houses bear different numbers. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgements and decrees, considered the so called questions of law framed by counsel for the appellant but express my inability to hold that the impugned judgements raise any substantial question of law. The courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. It has been specifically held that the appellant has failed to place on record any demarcation report or site plan to prove that the property owned by respondent no.2 and the property claimed by the appellant are different. As regards the averments in Ex.P-13, the courts below have rejected the assertion that it contains an admission that the two properties bear different municipal numbers by holding that no such plea was raised and even otherwise, is insufficient to hold in favour of the appellant in view of the absence of any municipal record. I find no reason, whether in law or in fact to hold that the findings recorded by the courts below are incorrect. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, Tara Singh, father of the appellant and Darshan Singh, the vendor of respondent no.1 went through a protracted litigation including objections manipulated by the appellant, his brother and by Tara Singh. After Tara Singh was dispossessed, he suffered a collusive decree in favour of his son, Boota Singh the appellant who started this fresh round of litigation. The courts below have rightly held that the suit land belongs to respondent no.1 and in the absence of any evidence to establish his ownership, the appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It would also be necessary to mention here that the collusive decree dated 13.12.1996 was suffered by Tara Singh after the suit had been decreed in RSA No.4074 of 2008 4 favour of Darshan Singh and even after the appeal had been dismissed by the High Court on 7.2.1994. As it has already been held in the connected RSA No.689 of 2009 that the suit property is the same and does not bear different municipal numbers, it would necessarily follow that the present appeal must meet the same fate. Dismissed. 6.10.2009 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE