R.S.A. No. 4277 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4277 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.05.2009 Sanwarmal ....appellant versus Mahender Kumar and others ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. R.A. Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2008 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant seeking possession by way of pre-emption stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellant brought a suit for possession of land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas by way of pre-emption of sale deed dated 2.7.2004 on the plea that he was lessee over the land in dispute and, therefore, had a preferential right of pre-emption. The learned Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff failed to prove that he was lessee, as the lease deed for 99 years alleged to have been executed in his favour was not produced, nor any secondary evidence was led. R.S.A. No. 4277 of 2008 -2- The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is perverse, as it has failed to notice the documentary evidence by way of jamabandi on record to non-suit the plaintiff/appellant?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the jamabandi, the plaintiff/appellant was shown as a lessee for 99 years and, therefore, the learned Courts below committed an error in holding that the plaintiff/appellant did not have a preferential right of pre-emption. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The entry in the jamabandi which is not supported by basic or other document cannot be basis to decree the suit for pre-emption. A positive stand was taken by the plaintiff/appellant, that he was lessee over the land for a period of 99 years, but no such evidence was produced. In absence of proof and pleadings, the learned Courts below were right in dismissing the suit for pre-emption. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 27, 2009 R.S.