RSA No. 2525 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2525 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 10, 2009 Jai Pal ...... Appellant Versus Santosh and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Advocate for the appellant. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for possession on the ground that even though in the registered sale deed it has been recorded that the possession was taken and, even though there was also a subsequent admitted writing dated 15.6.93 wherein the appellant again reiterated the fact that possession had been delivered to him yet in actual fact possession of the entire land purchased by him had not been transferred. Learned counsel has proposed the following substantial questions :- i) Whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled in law for possession of the total piece of land measuring 52.2 RSA No. 2525 of 2009 2 sq. yards on the basis of title duly purchased by him vide sale deed dated 5.5.1993 from defendant No.1.? ii) Whether the present one is a clear case of misreading, misinterpreting and misconstruing of documentary as well as oral evidence available on the record of the case? iii) Whether the defendants can be allowed to take undue benefit out of their own wrong and malafide intentions while depriving the plaintiff-appellant from the possession of the total piece of land purchased by the plaintiff from defendant No.1.? It would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. However, considering the question No. (ii) I went through the entire record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel to ascertain whether the findings of fact are based either on no evidence or on such a misreading of the evidence that they can be termed to be perverse and thus liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. I regret that I cannot subscribe to the opinion that these findings suffer from the above infirmities . Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 10, 2009 sunita