R.S.A. No. 2140 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2140 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.03.2009 Malook Singh ....Appellant Versus Saroop Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 24.1.2007 and 5.10.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful occupation of the plaintiff in the area measuring 2 marlas situated at village Kala Bahian, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, as per jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit against defendant No. 1 alleged intending vendee of defendant No. 2 a co-sharer of the property in dispute on the plea that he was in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. The suit was contested wherein a plea was raised that defendant No. 2 was co-sharer and had agreed to sell 2 marlas of land in favour of defendant No. 1, and under the agreement to sell R.S.A. No. 2140 of 2008 (O&M) -2- possession was handed over to defendant No. 1, who was in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. It was also the case set up by the defendants that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff/appellant tried to disposses defendant No. 1 illegally and an FIR was got registered against the plaintiff/appellant. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to appear in the witness box to prove the family settlement under which he was claiming exclusive possession of the property in dispute. The learned Courts below also held that the power of attorney, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant, did not even state that the plaintiff/appellant was in possession of the property in dispute. The learned Courts below thus, held that the plaintiff failed to prove his exclusive possession over the property in dispute and, therefore, was not entitled to injunction. The learned Courts below also held that the plaintiff could not take benefit of the weaknesses of the defence of the respondent/defendants, as plaintiff was to stand on his own legs, as per settled law. The concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) March 05, 2009 Judge R.S.