RSA No.2839 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2839 of 2007 Date of Decision:17.08.2010 Ishwar Singh .... appellant Versus Ramesh Chand .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vikram Singh,Advocate for the appellant **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): This is plaintiff's appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 10.08.2004 has been accepted and suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction has been ordered to be dismissed. As per the averments, the appellant was owner in possession of 9 marlas of land as detailed in the plaint, which he allegedly purchased from one Jai Narain, vide sale deed dated 15.01.1995. According to the further averments, the aforesaid plot of the appellant was having measurement of land with length from East to West 51' and width from North to South as 48' as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint marked with letters ABCD and shown in green colour. It is further case of the appellant that defendant who is a strong person was bent upon forcibly encroaching upon the portion of the suit land as shown in red RSA No.2839 of 2007 2 colour and marked with letters ADEF in the site plan by digging out the foundation etc. The defendant was requested several times to desist but to no avail which constrained the appellant to file the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from encroaching upon his land. The suit was contested by the respondent submitting that the suit was false and based on concocted facts. It was specifically stated that defendant never tried to encroach upon the land. It was further pleaded that he had purchased the land measuring 4 marlas from khewat No.53, khatoni No.57, rect.No.29, killa No.15/2/1 total measuring 5K-18M being 4/118 share shown in green colour in the site plan attached with the written statement on the basis of the sale deed dated 23.11.1994. It was further stated that the suit property was bounded by pucca boundary wall and defendant was residing in the suit property having constructed a chhapar and tin shed on it and there was no occasion for the defendant to dig foundation and place stones in the property of the plaintiff as alleged. Other averments in the suit were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Plaintiff filed replication, wherein he reiterated his stand and denied the averments made by the defendant in the written statement. The parties led their evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the arguments, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff- appellant. Dissatisfied from the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant-respondent preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Lower Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree and the suit was dismissed. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court on RSA No.2839 of 2007 3 re-appreciation of evidence has recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff- appellant has failed to prove his case as he has not placed on record the sale deed of his plot to establish the pleadings made in the suit regarding the dimensions of the suit property etc. Even the appellant has not disputed the property purchased by the defendant-respondent. No reasons have been assigned by the appellant for non-production of the sale deed on the basis of which he had filed the present suit. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid finding of fact arrived at by the Lower Appellate Court can be controverted. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 17.08.2010 neenu