RSA No.4453 of 2009 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4453 of 2009 (O & M) Date of Decision: 21.04.2011 Satnam Singh ……Appellant Versus Fauja Singh …...Respondent Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Munish Gulati, Advocate for Mr. Avtar Singh Khinda, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.13346-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal. Plaintiff-Satnam Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against defendant-respondent- Fauja Singh alleging that plaintiff is in possession of the suit land measuring 14 kanals 7 marlas land i.e 8 kanals 7 marlas land of khasra No. 15 and 6 kanals land being half share of 12 kanals land of khasra No.6/2, 7/1 and 8/2 measuring 4 kanals each, as tenant and defendant has not concern with the suit land, but the defendant RSA No.4453 of 2009 (O & M) - 2 - threatened to take forcible possession of the suit land necessitating the filing of the injunction suit by the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that he is owner in possession of the suit land. Plaintiff never cultivated the suit land nor he is in possession thereof. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 29.05.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 12.06.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that plaintiff- appellant is proved to be in possession of the suit land as per entry in khasra girdwari. The contention cannot be accepted. Plaintiff is not recorded to be in possession of 8 kanals 7 marlas land of khasra No.15. There is no documentary evidence to depict his possession thereof. However, as regards the other 12 kanals land in which the plaintiff claimed possession of half share, the plaintiff has not alleged as to which portion thereof is in his possession. On the other hand, the very plea of the plaintiff depicts that he is not in exclusive possession of any part of the said 12 kanals land. He is also not RSA No.4453 of 2009 (O & M) - 3 - recorded to be in exclusive possession of any part thereof in khasra girdwari. On the other hand, application for correction of khasra girdwari made by the plaintiff was dismissed by Assistant Collector vide order dated 29.11.1990. In view of the aforesaid, concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below against the plaintiff-appellant does not require interference in second appeal as the said finding is not shown to be peverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit land. He has, therefore, been rightly non-suited by the Courts below. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be devoid of merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 21.04.2011 A.kaundal