IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2971 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.2.2010 Sukhdev Singh and others ....... Appellants. Versus Mohinder Kaur and others. ....... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.8812-C of 2009 The application is allowed and the delay of 38 days in the refiling of the appeal is condoned. R.S.A.No.2971 of 2009 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 23.11.1998 and 22.10.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala (hereinafter referred to as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (described hereinafter as `the first appellate Court'). R.S.A.No.2971 of 20099 (O&M) -2- .... Shri Kartar Singh (since dead and represented by his legal representatives) had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in his possession or dispossessing him from the property marked as ABCD in the site plan annexed with the plaint. It was pleaded that his father had purchased some land in January,1942 from one Buta Singh son of Lehna; that after the death of his father, he came to be in possession of the same on the basis of inheritance; that the respondents had no right, tittle or interest in the suit land, but on 18.6.1995, they had tried to dispossess him compelling him to file the instant suit. Upon notice, the respondents had appeared and filed their written statement contesting the suit. They had denied the ownership and possession of Kartar Singh over the suit land. It was pleaded that Kartar Singh was residing at Jalandhar for the last many years and he had no concern with the suit property. The further stand taken by them was that Bakhshish Singh -respondent no.2 was the owner in possession of the suit property, who, vide sale deed dated 16.5.1995, had sold the same to Sawinder Singh, Pargan Singh sons of Karam Singh son of Chanan Singh of village Ammo Nangal, who were in possession of the same; that the said persons had entrusted the suit land to them in order to look after it and to build shops thereon. The Courts below dismissed the suit of Kartar Singh and the appeal of his legal heirs, which has resulted in filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the R.S.A.No.2971 of 20099 (O&M) -3- .... findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous and are liable to be set aside as they are perverse. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention raised before this Court. Kartar Singh, the predecessor- in-interest of the appellants had based his claim on a sale deed qua the suit land which was purchased by his father. He failed to establish from the contents of the sale deed which he had produced as Exhibit P1 that the property reflected therein was the same as the suit property. The identity of the suit property was not established by any cogent material on record. There is also evidence on record to show that Kartar Singh had already fought five rounds of litigation regarding the suit property, but even the judgments rendered therein were not proved in accordance with law. Exhibits D2 to D5 are the plaints of the suit filed by Kartar Singh against different persons, but the same were not pursued by him Exhibit D6 is the copy of the civil suit filed by Harbans Singh, attorney of Kartar Singh, against Bakshish Singh (respondent no.2) and Exhibit D7 is the order of dismissal of the suit which was withdrawn on 9.9.1999. The revenue record produced by the respondents also does not depict the name of Kartar Singh to be in possession of the suit property. There is no other material which Kartar Singh himself had produced to substantiate his claim of ownership and possession over the suit property. Consequently, the findings of fact which have been recorded by the Courts below on the basis of revenue record cannot be termed to be incorrect so as to warrant interference in the R.S.A.No.2971 of 20099 (O&M) -4- .... Regular Second Appeal when no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen therein. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. February 4,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge