RSA No. 4789 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 4789 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: September 14, 2010 Om Parkash ...Appellant Versus Smt. Phoolwati and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the appellant. GURDEV SINGH, J. The unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant has preferred this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.6.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.2.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Mobile Court at Shirkrawa, dismissing his suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in his peaceful possession over the plot in dispute measuring 5 marlas bearing khewat/khata No. 145/168 khasra No. 34/3/2/2/2/3/1 (0-5), situated in the revenue estate of village Nakanpur, Punhana, forcibly and illegally by raising construction or otherwise. The plaintiff came up with the plea that he purchased this plot, vide sale deed dated 4.9.1984 and mutation No. 1760 was sanctioned in his favour on the basis of that sale deed. He raised the walls on the western and northern sides thereof upto the height of 4 feet and has been using this plot RSA No. 4789 of 2009 2 for the purpose mentioned in the plaint. The defendants collected the building materials for raising the construction on this plot and, thus, started interfering in his possession. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants and they filed their joint written statement. They denied the contentions of the plaintiff as made in the plaint and disputed the correctness of the site plan attached therewith. They pleaded that defendant No.1 had constructed two rooms, verandah, bathroom, boundary wall and one chhapper on this plot and he is coming in peaceful possession thereof continuously without any interruption and hostile to the entire world. They also challenged the sale deed, being null and void. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land detailed in para no. 1 & 2 of the plaint ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD 4. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed because of concealment of material facts ? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties ? OPD 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued ? OPD 7. Relief. On the basis of the evidence produced by both the sides and hearing counsel on their behalf, the trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiff and resultantly dismissed his suit. The first appeal preferred by RSA No. 4789 of 2009 3 him was also dismissed, vide aforesaid impugned judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the finding recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land is based upon no evidence and has been incorrectly recorded and that is the substantial question of law involved in this appeal. On the perusal of the judgments of the trial court and the first appellate court, it has been found that it was on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties that the finding was recorded that the plaintiff was not found in possession. There is nothing on record to conclude that the said finding is based on no evidence or the same is based on mis-reading reading of the evidence or the same is absolutely perverse. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. September 14, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE