RSA No.2229 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2229 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2011 Surjan Singh .....Appellant v. Tejwant Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.R.K.Arya, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6167-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 226 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.6166-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2229 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 12.1.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 10.4.2003 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. 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. RSA No.2229 of 2011(O&M) -2- Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the property in dispute measuring 5 marlas out of khasra No.35R5/2 on the plea that the same was purchased by him vide sale deed dated 18.11.1974 and since then he has been continuing in possession of the same. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants on the plea that said sale deed was already set aside by Civil Court and that even appeal filed before this Court was also dismissed. On appreciation of evidence suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that land measuring 5 marlas was purchased by him from Gurcharan Singh son of Ujagar Singh vide registered sale deed dated 18.11.1974 and the mutation was also sanctioned in his favour. However, perusal of judgments rendered by both the Courts below shows that appellant-plaintiff has failed to prove the sale deed, vide which he allegedly purchased the suit land. He has taken the plea that he purchased 5 marlas of land out of khasra No.35R/5 and, however, he has failed to show as to which portion of the said khasra number was purchased by him as no sale deed was produced by him and only mutation was produced. There was some mistake in sanctioning the mutation, which was later on corrected. It has also been observed that in the earlier litigation, it was specifically held that the construction raised by respondents-defendants does not fall in 5 marlas of land purchased by plaintiff out of khasra No.35R/5. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned RSA No.2229 of 2011(O&M) -3- judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned Courts below 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. 21.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge