IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1203 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.10.2010 Nonihal Krishan ......Appellant(s) Versus Som Nath and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 28 days in filing this appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.1203 of 2010 (O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in his and his brothers' possession over the suit property was dismissed. The suit was filed by the appellant claiming that the suit property was allotted to his father who migrated from Pakistan and the same was being used by him along with his brothers as his residential property and was in peaceful possession of the same. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondents denying the fact that the suit property was allotted to the father of the plaintiff- appellant. It was further submitted that the plaintiff never used the suit property nor he had any right, title or interest. The suit property was their courtyard situated in front of their house and the suit was liable to be dismissed. RSA No.1203 of 2010 (O&M) -2- I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the appellant has failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property. Even before this Court it could not established as to how the aforesaid findings are incorrect. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. October 29, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE