IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1262 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 14, 2009 Kashmir Singh ....Appellant Versus Darshan Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. K.S.Rekhi, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for partition and possession of land measuring 18 marlas by metes and bounds of plot measuring 2 kanals 2 sarsahis situated at village Gharyala, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti on April 21, 2006. One of the plaintiffs challenged the dismissal of the suit by filing an appeal but it also met the same fate, having been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Taran Taran, on December 19, 2008. Said plaintiff is now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiffs, as averred in the plaint, land measuring 2 kanals 2 sarsahis was allotted to Taba Singh, Surjit Singh, Hari Singh, Jass @ Jaswant Singh and Kashmir Singh in equal shares. The share RSA No. 1262 of 2009 -2- of Taba Singh came to be 8 marlas. After his death, his sons Bagga Singh, Fauja Singh, Narain Singh and Shangara Singh inherited his property in equal shares. Fauja Singh also died, leaving behind his two sons, i.e. Jass @ Jaswant Singh and Kashmir Singh, who came to own 2 marlas 2 sarsahis of land inherited by their father Fauja Singh apart from 16 marlas of land which stood allotted to them along with Taba Singh, Surjit Singh and Hari Singh. In this way Jass @ Jaswant Singh and Kashmir Singh became owners of 18 marlas of land. Jass @ Jaswant Singh also died, leaving behind his two daughters, i.e., Gurpinder Kaur and Baljinder Kaur. The khata is still joint and no partition had been effected between the parties. However, defendants No. 1 to 15 who were the other initial allottees and their successors, started threatening to alienate more than their share out of the suit property and raising construction over the same without getting it partitioned. The plaintiffs requested the defendants to admit their claim but they refused to do so. Hence, the suit by the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted by Darshan Singh-defendant No.1 only by asserting that he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession. He had constructed residential house and set up saw mill, flour mill, penja, etc. on the suit property. The electricity connection was issued and hand pump and water tap installed in his name. The land on which he had raised construction was purchased by his father Narain Singh to the extent of 2/3rds share and by Bagga Singh to the extent of 1/3rd share from Mohammedans before the partition of the Country. Vide sale deed dated 24.12.1987, Bagga Singh sold land measuring 8 marlas to him. Civil Suit RSA No. 1262 of 2009 -3- filed by daughters of Bagga Singh against him was dismissed by the trial Court as also by the first appellate Court and he was held to be in possession of the suit land. It was denied that the plaintiffs ever came in possession of the house over the suit property. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the suit. With a view to establishing their title over the suit property, the plaintiffs relied upon copy of register Ex.P2. However, both the learned lower Courts rightly observed that it could not treated as an allotment letter. Even otherwise, the plaintiffs failed to produce original allotment order. No official from the concerned department was called to prove the genuineness of Ex.P2. As the plaintiffs failed to prove better title over the suit property than the contesting defendants, they have rightly been denied the relief of possession by way of partition of the land. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the copy of register Ex.P2 was admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act as the record of the department had been duly kept. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon Shri Din Dayal V The State of Haryana and others 1976 P.L.J 43. I have gone through the aforementioned judgment. It was no body's case therein that copy of the register sikni had not been formally proved. As it stood proved, its contents were held to be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. On the other hand, in the present case, no official from the concerned department was examined by the plaintiffs to prove the copy of register Ex.P2. While being examined as RSA No. 1262 of 2009 -4- PW1, Kashmir Singh produced copy of register Ex.P2. Therefore, the judgment in Shri Din Dayal's case (Supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant, arises for determination in the present second appeal. The appeal, being without any merit is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 14, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1