RSA No.4704 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4704 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: February 18, 2010. Harjinder Singh ...Appellant(s) v. Jasmel Kaur & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): CM Nos.14133-C of 2009 For the reasons mentions in the applications, prayer is allowed and the delay of 10 days in re-filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. is disposed of. CM No.14134-C of 2009 For the reasons mentioned in the application, which are supported by an affidavit of the appellant, delay of 98 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. application is disposed of. RSA No.4704 of 2009 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant- respondents from dispossessing him forcibly or RSA No.4704 of 2009 -: 2 :- interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property has been dismissed. Brief facts, as averred in the plaint are that the appellant inherited the suit property from his father Kehar Singh being his sole legal heir on the basis of will dated 20.9.1974 executed in his favour by Kehar Singh. It was further averred that since his father's death, appellant was in continuous and peaceful possession of the suit property and the defendants have no right, title or interest in the same and were strangers. Since the respondents were threatening to dispossess him illegally, hence, the present suit. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed separate written statements raising various preliminary objections. Further, on merits, it was stated by defendant No.1 that the site plan which has been placed on record by the plaintiff was factually incorrect. The properties were constituted in khasra No.6005/387 and the property shown as red in the site plan attached with the plaint had separate identity. The property shown in the site plan is situated within the Lal Laqir of village abadi which was purchased by defendant No.1 from Harpal Singh son of Bachan Singh vide valid receipt dated 29.8.1987 and Harpal Singh had delivered the possession of the same in favour defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 was living abroad but was in possession of the same through her mother-in-law. Her mother-in-law was using the disputed property for storing roori, fuel wood and preparing dung cake etc. and she had also been using the disputed property to pass through to reach her ancestral property. So far as khasra numbers mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint are concerned, it was submitted by defendant No.1 that as per jamabandi for the year 1959-60, RSA No.4704 of 2009 -: 3 :- these khasra numbers are depicted as 6004/832, 335, 6005/130/387 and according to the field book for the year 1965-66, new khasra Nos.802, 903, 904 were allotted. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 had already sold these khasra numbers in favour of Dalip Singh son of Chanan Singh son of Natha Singh and mutation in respect of the sale deed was sanctioned in favour of Dalip Singh and the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had got no right, title and interest or any concern with any of the properties bearing khasra No.6005/387 or the property described in the site plan. The defendant No.1 has given any threat to dispossess plaintiff from any property of the defendant though the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit property. The defendant No.1 was living abroad and she was in possession of the property in dispute through her mother-in-law. There was absolutely no occasion for the plaintiff to make any alleged request defendant No.1. No cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff to file and institute the present suit and the same was liable to be dismissed. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove the alleged will executed by Kehar Singh in his favour as per law. It may be noticed that the aforesaid will has been produced on record as Mark-A. Neither the aforesaid document has been exhibited on record nor the same has been proved in accordance with law. The alleged will is the sole basis of the case of appellant. In view of the aforesaid fact, no fault can be found in the findings of the courts below that the appellant has failed to prove any legal right in the suit property and, therefore, he was not entitled to any injunction. RSA No.4704 of 2009 -: 4 :- Thus, I find no infirmity in the findings of the courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises in this appeal. Dismissed. February 18, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge