RSA No.965 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.965 of 2010 Date of decision : March 04, 2010 Mohinder Singh ....Appellant versus Jagir Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present : Ms. Puneet Kaur Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant. *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Mohinder Singh plaintiff has come in Second Appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Plaintiff filed suit against respondent Jagir Singh, who is brother of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff alleged that he is exclusive owner in possession of the disputed street, which he purchased along with his residential house more than 32 years ago from Puran Singh etc. vide registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1970. The defendant has no right, title or interest therein but he threatened to interfere in the said street of the plaintiff. The defendant denied the averments of the plaintiff and alleged that the property situated on eastern side was purchased by RSA No.965 of 2010 -2- plaintiff and defendant and the same is jointly owned and possessed by the parties. The street in dispute is a public street and Gram Panchayat has brick-paved it and water of the house of defendant is passing through the disputed street. Various others pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Batala vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2005 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 20.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendant has taken a contradictory stand by alleging that the disputed property is joint property and that it is a public street. The contention cannot be accepted because the plaintiff's case is that he purchased the disputed site along with house from Puran Singh etc. vide registered sale deed 15.04.1970. The defendant's case is that both the brothers i.e. plaintiff and defendant purchased the land jointly from Puran Singh etc. vide said sale deed. The said sale deed, which appears to be only an agreement, has been produced as Exhibit D/1. A perusal thereof, as shown by the counsel for the appellant, RSA No.965 of 2010 -3- reveals that both the plaintiff and the defendant purchased land jointly. There is no other document produced by the plaintiff to depict his exclusive ownership or possession over the disputed land. It appears that after purchasing the land jointly, the plaintiff constructed his house on eastern side and the defendant constructed his house on the western side and the disputed site was left as common street as is also apparent from the site plan as shown by the counsel for the appellant. Both the Courts below have on proper appreciation of evidence come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his exclusive ownership and possession over the disputed street. There is concurrent finding against the plaintiff. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal. The said finding is substantiated by document dated 15.04.1970 Exhibit D/1. It was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff himself but this document belies his claim. The plaintiff has not led any documentary evidence regarding his exclusive ownership over the disputed site. The plaintiff's claim is that he purchased it from Puran Singh etc. on 15.04.1970 vide registered sale deed dated 15.04.1970. However, except document dated 15.04.1970 Exhibit D/1, no other sale-deed, as pleaded by the plaintiff, has been produced to depict his exclusive ownership or possession over the disputed site whereas document Exhibit D/1 reveals that the land was purchased jointly by both the parties. Thus, RSA No.965 of 2010 -4- there is no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L.N. Mittal) March 04, 2010 Judge vcgarg