R.S.A. No. 1433 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1433 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 1.4.2009 Banarsi and others ....Appellants Versus Ram Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.M.K.Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 2.8.2007 and the first Appellate Court dated 26.2.2009. Plaintiff Yudhister (since deceased), represented by the present appellants, filed a suit alleging that he had purchased the suit property from defendant/respondent Ram Singh vide sale deed dated 1.8.1977. The sale deed did not carry any specifications of the property but it was described as the northern end of one particular killa number. The plaintiff claimed that he had constructed a house on it and he was owner in possession of the suit property including the portion which was shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the plaint in front of the house which he had constructed. R.S.A. No. 1433 of 2009 (O&M) -2- The respondent/defendant contested the suit and denied that the disputed portion, which is in front of the house, was ever sold to the plaintiff/appellants. It was pleaded that only 13 marlas of land was sold to him which did not include this portion. The following issues were struck during the course of trial :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land?OPP 2. Relief. Both the Courts below concluded that even though the disputed area was a part of Killa No.10/2 (0-13), yet the plaintiff had failed to establish that the red portion in front of his house was also a part of the property which was sold to him. Aggrieved by the said findings, the appellants are in regular second appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the demarcation report shows that the disputed portion was also sold to the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and therefore they were in possession thereof as its rightful owners and since both the Courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter, the findings recorded by them are perverse. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. Concededly, the sale deed does not bear any specification of the suit property except describing in it by a site plan and by giving other directions such as north of killa No.10/2. On record there is R.S.A. No. 1433 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Tatima drawn by the Patwari and verified by the Kanungo which shows that the triangular portion was not a part of the property purchased by the plaintiff. The demarcation report which has been relied upon by the appellants is not admissible in evidence and has been rightly discarded by the first Appellate Court as it was not a certified copy of the original and ultimately since the plaintiff had failed to prove the dimensions and measurements of the property purchased by him, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court regarding pure questions of fact are perverse. No substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 1.4.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss