R. S. A. No. 1351 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1351 of 2010 Date of Decision : May 26, 2010 Angrej Singh .... Appellant Vs. Naresh Kumar and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. M. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by plaintiff Angrej Singh, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court. Plaintiff alleged that he has purchased suit plot measuring 117 sq. yards being part of khasra no.26//18, as depicted in site plan Ex.P-3, vide registered sale deed dated 20.07.2001 and is owner in possession thereof since then. Defendants have no concern with the suit property, but they threatened to take possession thereof forcibly. The plaintiff, therefore, sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot as owner R. S. A. No. 1351 of 2010 2 thereof. The defendants inter alia pleaded that they are owners of the properties depicted in the site plan and they have already constructed a room there. The plaintiff has filed the suit as counter blast to the suit filed by the defendants. The plaintiff has already obtained a demarcation report of khasra no.26//18. The plaintiff did not derive any title through the sale deed pleaded by him. His vendor Mandeep Singh was not competent to execute sale deed as he was not owner of the suit land and never remained in possession thereof. The plaintiff also was never owner or in possession of the suit property. The suit property is a part of abadi deh. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City, vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide judgment and decree dated 01.02.2010 and suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record including the records of the courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the defendants' witnesses admitted that they did not know what had been recorded in their affidavits of examination-in-chief and they had simply R. S. A. No. 1351 of 2010 3 signed/thumb marked the same. However, this contention does not prove the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot be granted decree unless he proves his own case. Moreover, Nasib Singh (DW-2) and Raj Kumar (DW- 3) have stood by their evidence of examination-in-chief and only Mohan Lal (DW-1) failed to prove the contents of his affidavit of examination-in-chief. The plaintiff has alleged that the suit plot is part of khasra no.26//18. However, there is not even iota of evidence on record to prove the same except oral evidence. The plaintiff did not obtain any demarcation report to depict that suit plot is part of khasra no.26//18. The plaintiff has not even placed on record aks shajra, which could also help the plaintiff in establishing this fact because the suit plot is situated at junction of two thoroughfares i.e. Guhar and passage, which would have been depicted in the aks shajra. In addition to the aforesaid, perusal of jamabandi for the year 2000-01 (Ex.P-5) reveals that total area of khasra no.26//18 is 02 kanals 12 marlas, out of which the plaintiff purchased about four marlas land from one co-sharer Mandeep Singh. Mutation Ex.P-4 has been sanctioned in favour of plaintiff on the basis of sale deed. However, the said mutation is regarding 4/42 share of 02 kanals 12 marlas land of khasra no.26//18 i.e. regarding four marlas land out of the total land. It is thus apparent that the plaintiff simply became co-sharer in the land of khasra no.26//18. However, it is not proved that plaintiff's vendor Mandeep Singh was in exclusive R. S. A. No. 1351 of 2010 4 possession of the disputed plot, which is specific part of khasra no.26//18. On the other hand, copy of jamabandi (Ex.P-5) reveals that all the co- sharers were in joint possession of the entire land of khasra no.26//18. Consequently, plaintiff's vendor Mandeep Singh could not deliver possession of the disputed plot, which is specific part of khasra no. 26//18. It is thus manifest that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the suit plot even assuming that the suit plot is part of khasra no.26//18. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. There is no illegality in the finding of the lower appellate court, non-suiting the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to prove that is owner or in exclusive possession of the suit plot. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 26, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE