RSA No.2455 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2455 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 3, 2011 Inderjit .....Appellant v. Joginder Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.P.C.Rakra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.6745-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2455 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 22.2.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 3.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Dasuya, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was partly decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land measuring 30 marlas, fully described in the heading of the plaint, on the plea that respondents-defendants had encroached upon the same. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants denied that any portion of the RSA No.2455 of 2011(O&M) -2- land belonging to plaintiff was encroached upon by them. Learned trial Court appointed two commissions for demarcation of the disputed khasra numbers. The first commission reported that there was no encroachment by respondents-defendants and however, another local commissioner was appointed by learned trial Court, i.e., Tehsildar, who submitted his report that respondents-defendants had encroached upon 3 marlas 5 sarsai of land belonging to the plaintiffs and hence, by placing reliance upon the report of the second local commissioner, i.e., Arvinder Pal Singh, Tehsildar Mukerian, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. Against the said judgment and decree, appellant-plaintiff filed appeal before learned first appellate Court, which was also dismissed. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that demarcation was not conducted by the Tehsildar as per the rules. However, the plea was not accepted by both the Courts below. Earlier local commissioner was appointed as per request of appellant-plaintiff, who gave his report to the effect that there was no encroachment by respondents- defendants. However, another local Commissioner, i.e., Tehsildar Mukerian was appointed by the Court as Court was not satisfied with the report given by the previous local commissioner and on the basis of the said report, the present suit was partly decreed. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on RSA No.2455 of 2011(O&M) -3- misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 3.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge