RSA No.4144 of 2009(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4144 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: August 9, 2011 Smt Surjit Kaur .....Appellant v. Gurdeep Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 31.3.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 19.1.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for setting aside registered sale deed dated 26.7.1973 executed by her husband late Chanan Singh in favour of the respondents. Suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by both the Courts on the ground of limitation. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant-plaintiff presumed the possession of respondents-defendants on RSA No.4144 of 2009(O&M) -2- the land in dispute as lessees and, however, when they stopped to make payment of rent, the present suit was filed. However, it has been held by both the Courts that no cogent evidence has been adduced by appellant-plaintiff to prove the alleged fact. No lease deed was placed on record. Even in the jamabandi, there was no mention of the land being given on lease by Chanan Singh to defendants. Sale deed was executed and registered on 26.7.1973. The suit has been filed after lapse of 19 years, i.e., on 26.11.2002. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 9.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge