Regular Second Appeal No. 2950 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2950 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.2.2009 *** Sheela Appellant VS. Soni & Anr. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction, staking her claim on the suit land on the basis of Hibba Nama vide Vasika No.861 dated 9.12.1994 and consequent mutation entered thereupon and an injunction against the defendants, who allegedly encroached some portion thereof, to deliver the physical possession of the suit property and not to raise further construction on it. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that the plaintiff has no concern with the suit property and the defendants are actually in possession of the same. The plaintiff lost concurrently before the two Courts below and hence the instant regular second appeal has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the paper book carefully. There is no dispute to the fact that the land, as per revenue record, was in the name of Panchayat and mutation was sanctioned in the name of plaintiff on the basis of gift deed dated 9.12.1994. But neither the said gift deed was produced in the Court nor the plaintiff herself stepped into the witness box in support of her averments in the plaint and to deny the pleadings of the defendants. Thus, the Courts below, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the plaintiff as to her title qua the suit property, drew an adverse inference against her by observing that only the mutation Regular Second Appeal No. 2950 of 2008 2 does not confer any right of title. Even nothing substantial was produced by the plaintiff to prove that the defendants had made any encroachment upon killa No.21/20. Neither any demarcation report showing encroachment by the defendants was produced nor the witnesses of plaintiff were able to tell the boundaries. That apart in an earlier round of litigation, the Civil Court passed a decree for permanent injunction in favour of defendant No.2 regarding the suit land. Nothing has been shown by learned counsel for the appellant to take a contrary view. No ground is made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal, is made out. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 6,2009 Jiten