R. S. A. No. 1294 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1294 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 23, 2011 Chand Singh .... Appellant Vs. Chuhar Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant no.2 – Chand Singh, having failed in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Respondent no.1 – plaintiff Chuhar Singh filed suit against Teja Singh – defendant no.1/proforma respondent no.2 and Chand Singh – defendant no.2/appellant for possession of 01 bigha 04 biswas land. The plaintiff alleged that he is owner of 61 bighas 19 biswas land. Defendants' land of khasra no.782 adjoins the plaintiff's land of khasra no.781. Similarly, defendants' land of khasra nos.791 and 792 adjoins plaintiff's land of khasra nos.790 and 789. Defendants forcibly and illegally occupied R. S. A. No. 1294 of 2010 2 01 bigha 04 biswas land of plaintiff comprised of khasra nos.781 (0-3), 789 (0-11) and 790 (0-10). This fact was affirmed on demarcation obtained by the plaintiff through Naib Tehsildar. Defendants, while admitting that their land adjoins the plaintiff's land, controverted the other plaint allegations broadly. It was pleaded that defendants have not encroached upon any portion of the plaintiff's land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Malerkotla, vide judgment and decree dated 22.08.2007, decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of 01 bigha 04 biswas land, as sought by the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by defendant no.2 has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 05.10.2009 with rectification of judgment and decree of the trial court to the effect that the suit is deemed to have been decreed in respect of 01 bigha 01 biswa land comprised of khasra nos. 781 (0-3), 790 (0-9) and 789 (0-9). Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the defendants have not encroached upon any part of the land of the plaintiff. The contention cannot be accepted. On demarcation sought by the plaintiff before filing of the suit, it was found that defendants have encroached upon R. S. A. No. 1294 of 2010 3 01 bigha 04 biswas land of the plaintiff, as claimed in the plaint. However, Revenue Officer had been appointed as Local Commissioner by the trial court. The Local Commissioner reported that defendants have encroached upon 01 bigha 01 biswa land of the plaintiff i.e. Khasra nos. 781 (0-3), 789 (0-9) and 790 (0-9). No objections were filed against the report of Local Commissioner. The said report is also not shown to be vitiated in any manner. Consequently, it is proved that the defendants have encroached upon 01 bigha 01 biswa land of the plaintiff and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly decreed for the same. There is, therefore, no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree of the trial court, as rectified by the lower appellate court. Finding recorded by the courts below in this regard is fully justified by the evidence on record and does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 23, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE