R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2009 Date of Decision : February 25, 2010 Tarlok Singh and another .... Appellants Vs. Prito and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by plaintiffs, who have remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Plaintiffs filed suit for possession of portion depicted by letters AMNE in green colour in site plan annexed with the plaint, which is part of building shown by letters ABCD in the said site plan. The plaintiffs alleged that the building in question is in khasra no.71. In family settlement, it fell to the share of the plaintiffs. They also alleged that they have purchased the suit property vide sale deed dated 26.05.1998. Defendants are in illegal possession of the disputed portion of the building for the last 5-6 years. The defendants inter alia pleaded that the suit property was allotted to their forefathers by Central Government/Punjab Government. Site plan annexed with the plaint was pleaded to be incorrect. The disputed house was alleged to be within abadi area. Averments of the plaintiffs were denied. R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2009 2 Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2006, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2009. However, the plaintiffs have been given opportunity to get khasra no.71 demarcated from revenue official and to file suit for possession against the person, who is found to be in illegal possession of khasra no.71. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff no.1 Tarlok Singh appeared in the witness-box and supported his own version. Sale deed dated 26.05.1998 (Ex.P-1), site plan (Ex.P-2) and jamabandi for the year 1998-99 (Ex.P-3) were also produced in evidence. As per sale deed Ex.P-1, the plaintiffs purchased 6½ marlas land, being half share of 10 marlas land of khasra no.71 and 3 marlas land of khasra no.5R/3/2, from their own father Suba Singh. Land of khasra no.5R/3/2 is not in dispute in the instant suit. As per jamabandi, the plaintiffs have been recorded to be owners in possession of half share of land of khasra no.71 (0-10), whereas Shiv Singh has been recorded to be owner in possession of the remaining half share thereof. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the building in question or the disputed portion AMNE thereof falls in khasra no.71. In the absence of evidence to this effect, the plaintiffs cannot succeed and have been rightly non-suited. It may be noticed that the suit was instituted on 18.02.2003 and it was pleaded that defendants are in illegal possession of the suit property for the last 5-6 years. It would mean that defendants were in possession of the suit property since prior to the sale deed dated 26.05.1998, but in sale deed dated 26.05.1998, it has been stated that possession of the land sold has been delivered to the vendees i.e. plaintiffs. R. S. A. No. 3806 of 2009 3 It is also worth noticing that no dimensions of the disputed portion depicted by letters AMNE in the site plan have been mentioned either in the plaint or in the site plan. In the absence of dimensions the said portion cannot be said to be properly described and in the event of suit being decreed, the decree would not be executable in the absence of dimensions. It would not be out of place to notice here that the lower appellate court, even while dismissing the appeal, has protected the interest of the appellants, by giving them opportunity to get khasra no.71 demarcated and to file suit for possession against the person, who is found to be in illegal possession thereof. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding of the courts below is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 25, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE