RSA No.2773 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2773 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.3.2009 Nek Ram ......Appellant Versus Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's second second appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby the appeal filed by the respondents has been accepted and decree for permanent injunction passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant by the trial Court has been set aside. Before the trial Court, the case of the plaintiff-appellant was that he had been allotted the suit land in the year 1986 by the defendant- respondents No.2 and 3 and he is in possession thereof since then. The defendants denied any allotment of the suit land in favour of the appellant. The possession of the appellant was also denied. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2007 after relying upon some photographs placed on record as Exs.P-6 to P-14 and admission of DW-1 decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. The aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged by the defendant-respondents in the Court of District Judge, Faridkot. While accepting the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court observed RSA No.2773 of 2008 (O&M) 2 as under: “Before the learned Lower Court, the simple case of the plaintiff Nek Ram, an Ex serviceman, was that he has been allotted the suit land in the year 1986 by the defendants Union of India and others and he is in its possession since then. The defendants Union of India denied any allotment of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff Nek Ram or that Nek Ram is in its possession. During the evidence before the learned Lower Court, the plaintiff Nek Ram could not produce in evidence any document or any allotment order showing that he has been allotted the suit land by the appellants Union of India. On the Lower Court file, there is an application dated 5.2.2004 Ex.P2 showing that the plaintiff Nek Ram applied for the allotment of the land to him. An unproved document i.e. letter dated 10.1.2004 Mark 3 shows that any such allotment to him was declined by the Director Sainik Welfare. He was advised to approach the District Sainik Welfare Officer, Faridkot, where also he got no such relief or allotment. He is, thus, not the allottee of the suit land, as claimed by him before the learned Lower Court, Ex.P-10 is the certified copy of the jamabandi for the year 1997-98 produced before the learned Lower Court by the plaintiff Nek Ram himself, which also shows the Union of India to be the owner of the suit land and the Defence Minsitry to be in its possession. His allotment or possession over the suit land has no where been recorded in the documents. RSA No.2773 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Merely getting himself photographed standing on the Government will neither make him its owner nor its allottee not will it prove his possession there over. In a vacant land anybody can get him photograph. Only because some unscrupulous witness of the other party made an oral statement against the documentary record, in his favour, the same does not wash away or negate documentary evidence. The plaintiff is to stand on his own legs. Where a fact can be proved by documentary evidence, the oral evidence on the point cannot be given any weight. The documentary evidence must prevail upon the oral evidence. In the present case, the documentary evidence (jamabandi) is not in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Lower Court has gravely erred in holding the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit land. The findings recorded by the learned Lower Court on issue No.1 cannot be upheld in appeal. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Lower Court on issue No.1 and the impugned judgment and decree are set aside. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant-defendants Union of India is accepted with costs and the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Nek Ram as filed before the learned Lower Court is ordered to be dismissed.“ Feeling not satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. A perusal of the impugned judgment and decree of the First RSA No.2773 of 2008 (O&M) 4 Appellate Court shows that a finding of fact has been recorded that the appellant could not produce in evidence any document or allotment order showing that he was allotted the suit land by the respondents. No doubt, vide Ex.P-2 the appellant applied for allotment of the suit land, but there is no evidence on record to prove that the suit land was allotted to the appellant. The Lower Appellate Court while recording the aforesaid finding against the appellant has also relied upon Ex.P-10 certified copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 in which Union of India has been shown to be the owner of the suit land and has been shown to be in possession through the Ministry of Defence. Rather, there is another document on the file (i.e. Mark-A though the said document is not proved) but even this document does not support the case of the appellant as vide this very document such allotment was declined to him. Thus, merely because DW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that the plaintiff is cultivating the suit land or that some photographs have been placed on record in which the appellant is shown to be standing in the vacant land, will not prove the fact that the appellant is owner in possession of the suit property. Thus, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 10, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE