Regular Second Appeal No. 3573 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3573 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.3.2009 *** Gopal .. Appellant VS. Gordhan & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. The delay of 1 day in re-filing the appeal stands condoned. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), questioning the legality and impropriety of judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below dismissing his suit for possession of the suit land. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal arises for determination in this appeal. The plaintiff as well as contesting respondent-defendants staked their claim on the suit property. As per plaintiff he purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 31.5.1985 from Om Parkash while according to defendant No.1 he is owner in possession of the suit land by dint of sale-deed dated 8.10.1987 executed by Laxman Singh and Luxmi Narain. It emerges out from the records that the plaintiff failed to prove that the land, which was claimed to have been illegally occupied by defendant No.1, was the subject matter of the sale deed dated 31.5.1985 in his favour. The plaintiff even failed to establish the identity of the suit land since no demarcation report was produced by him. More so the Regular Second Appeal No. 3573 of 2008 2 description of the boundaries of the suit land given by the plaintiff in his cross-examination was found tallied with the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed dated 8.10.1987 in favour of defendant No.1. Thus, it has been held that to prove that defendant has encroached upon any part of the land, the subject matter of sale deed dated 31.5.1985, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to get the suit land demarcated. Further, considering the admission made by the plaintiff with regard to defendant No.1 in possession of the suit land since 1988 and the latter not party to the judgment and decree dated 9.10.1990 wherein defendants No.2 to 8 were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff, it has been held that there is no violation of judgment and decree dated 9.10.1990 by defendant No.1. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 23,2009 Jiten