RSA No.1299 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Regular Second Appeal No.1299 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : March 24, 2009 Nanak ... Appellant VERSUS Smt.Usha Kumari and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Karan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The plaintiff – appellant has raised the dispute regarding 10 Kanal 6 Marlas of land. It has been submitted that the land belongs to Mangti and others, and subsequently purchased by defendant – respondent No.1 Usha Kumari by virtue of registered sale-deed dated 2.4.1999. Now, the appellant is vehemently urging that he is in possession of the disputed land in the capacity as `tenant', but the stand of respondent No.1 is that the appellant had delivered the possession after receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- and in this regard an affidavit (Ex.D1) was also furnished by him. The execution of the affidavit (Ex.D1) stands duly proved by examining Bishna Ram (DW3) and Rulia Ram Lambardar (DW4). The appellant has also not denied his thumb RSA No.1299 of 2009 [ 2 ] impression on the affidavit (Ex.D1). Had the document been not genuine, then the appellant could also examine the finger print expert, but he did not choose to do so. Thus, the mode of proof as adopted by the defendant cannot be said to be inappropriate. The appellant cannot wriggle out of the execution of the affidavit (Ex.D1) and payment of Rs.10,000/-, thereunder. Secondly, the plaintiff – appellant had earlier also filed a suit (Ex.D4) for declaration and permanent injunction against the previous owners i.e. Mangti, etc, which was eventually dismissed in default on 24.3.2001. All this goes to show that the plaintiff – appellant had certainly surrendered the possession on receipt of Rs.10,000/-, in token of which he had also executed the affidavit (Ex.D1). That apart, the instant appeal is also delayed by 90 days, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given. Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is declined. Consequently, the appeal also fails. March 24, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE