RSA No.4114 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4114 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:01.11.2010. Gurdial Singh ...Appellant Versus Gulzar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal in a suit filed by him for permanent injunction in order to restrain defendant No.1 from claiming any right, title or interest in the property comprising in Plot No.132-33, 63- 64 & 80, situated in village Raiwali, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala on the basis of a conveyance deed dated 22.07.1991 executed by defendant No.3 in his favour. The case set up by the plaintiff is that property comprising in Plot No.132-33, 63-64 & 80, situated in village Raiwali, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala was owned and possessed by his late father Shri Kartar Singh which was purchased from the Rehabilitation Department. It was alleged that defendant No.1 (his brother) got executed a fictitious conveyance deed from defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated 22.07.1991 of land measuring 672 Sq. Yards which is part of plot No.80 owned by his father and is claiming his right over it exclusively. In the written statement, defendant No.1 admitted Kartar Singh, his father, to be the RSA No.4114 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ****** owner of property comprising in Plot No.132-33, 63-64 & 80 as alleged by the plaintiff. It was averred that he had purchased the property measuring 672 Sq. Yards (22 Marlas) from Rehabilitation Department by virtue of sale deed dated 22.07.1991 which is not a part of the property owned by his father. It was alleged that his father challenged the sale deed dated 22.07.1991 before the Joint Secretary, Rehabilitation Department- cum-Settlement Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh, who himself had inspected the spot and had held that his father Kartar Singh had no concern with the aforesaid land which was rightly transferred in favour of defendant No.1 by Tehsildar (Sales), Ambala vide his order dated 25.05.1991 and approved by the Settlement Commissioner. It was also alleged that his father Kartar Singh had challenged the orders of the prescribed authority by way of CWP No.15481 of 1993 which was dismissed by this Court on 26.08.1994. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both the parties led their respective evidence and after appreciating the evidence available on record, both the Courts below dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by recording a finding that Kartar Singh, father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had earlier challenged the ownership of defendant No.1 over the property in dispute in which he remained unsuccessful up to the High Court and then the plaintiff has filed the present suit after about 8 years. The learned Courts below have found that the plaintiff has failed to identify the property in dispute as there is neither any site plan nor there is any demarcation report produced by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is a Gobar Gas Plant existing in the property in dispute since 1984 which was installed by his father Kartar Singh after taking loan from the bank and there also exits handpump, bathroom etc. from the last 45 years on the land in dispute, therefore, the same was owned by the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and is not exclusively owned by defendant No.1. I am afraid that this argument cannot be sustained because Kartar Singh, from whom the plaintiff claims succession of the property in dispute, had himself tried to seek cancellation of conveyance of the RSA No.4114 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ****** property in dispute in favour of defendant No.1 and had remained miserably unsuccessful up to the High Court, therefore, the matter cannot be re-opened at the instance of the plaintiff as successor of Kartar Singh. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to prove that the property in dispute is a part of Plot No.80 as suggested by the plaintiff. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the learned Courts below and also in the absence of any substantial question of law raised or involved, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. November 01, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE