R.S.A.No.508 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.508 of 2008 Date of Decision : 23.7.2009 Kashmira Singh ...Appellant Versus Satnam Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by Courts below, whereby his suit for injunction was dismissed. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is owner in possession of khasra No.14, whereas the defendants are owners of adjacent khasra No.17. 20 Eucalyptus trees have been planted over khasra No.14, but the defendants are threatening to cut and remove the same and, therefore, the plaintiff sought injunction. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to lead any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that the aforesaid Eucalyptus trees were planted within the boundary of khasra No.14. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the report submitted by Smt. Anju Bal, Local Commissioner, who visited the spot R.S.A.No.508 of 2008 2 on 10.1.2002. She has reported that khasra Nos.14 and 17 were also identified by both the parties and there is no boundary line between khasra Nos.14 and 17. It was also found that there are 20 Eucalyptus trees in between both the khasra numbers. It was also found that the level of khasra No.17 is lower than the land of khasra No.14 and level of land underneath the tress is higher than the level of khasra No.17 and equal to the level of land of khasra No.14. On the basis of such report, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to infer that the trees are planted on khasra No.14. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is based upon surmises and conjectures. Admittedly, khasra Nos. 14 and 17 are adjacent to each other. Whether the trees are standing on khasra No.14 or khasra No.17 could best be determined by getting the respective portion of land demarcated. In the absence of any demarcation of the land of the plaintiff and that of the defendants, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. 23.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE