RSA No.1418 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.1418 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 18 th APRIL, 2011 Bir Singh & others .... Appellants Versus Smt. Samundary & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Chabra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Amit Shivrain, Advocate for Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Advocate the respondent No.2 to 10. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below have filed the instant second appeal. Suit was filed by Dharam Singh plaintiff No.1 (since deceased and represented by respondents No.1 to 8 as his legal representatives) (respondent No.1 has also since died and is also represented by respondents No.2 to 8 as her legal representatives) and Charan Singh and Karan Singh plaintiffs No.2 and 3/respondents No.9 and 10 against appellants/defendants. The plaintiffs claim themselves to be owners of 7 Kanals 10 Marlas land comprised of various khasra numbers. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants have encroached upon suit land measuring 96 Square Yards out of Khasra No.29/25/1/2 and 50 Square Yards out of Khasra No.29/25/2 and also encroached upon land of Khasra Nos.28/21/1/2 and 21/2. The plaintiffs sought decree for possession of the encroached land. RSA No.1418 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Defendants denied the plaint allegations. The defendants denied having encroached upon any land of Khasra numbers pleaded by the plaintiffs. The defendants claimed themselves to be owner in possession of the suit land. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bahadurgarh vide judgment and decree dated 09.04.2004 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendants has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that demarcation by Raghbir Singh, Field Kanungo PW-1 was not conducted in the presence of defendants and, therefore, on the basis of his demarcation report Exhibit P-2, it cannot be said that suit land is part of Khasra numbers owned by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that demarcation was conducted by Raghbir Singh after prior intimation to both the parties and at the time of demarcation, defendants' father Ram Singh was also present but refused to affix his signatures on the demarcation report. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The central controversy in the instant lis is as to whether the suit land is part of khasra numbers owned by the plaintiffs or not. There is no dispute, as also proved from the revenue record, that the plaintiffs are owners of the khasra numbers in question. To prove that suit land is part of the said khasra numbers, the plaintiffs, in addition to other evidence, have examined Raghbir Singh, Field RSA No.1418 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Kanungo and have got proved demarcation report Exhibit P-2 made by him. The said demarcation report proves that defendants have encroached upon suit land belonging to the plaintiffs out of khasra numbers in question. There is practically no rebuttal of this demarcation report. It is mentioned in the demarcation report that prior intimation had been given to both the parties before making the demarcation. In addition to it, if the defendants were not satisfied with the aforesaid demarcation, they could seek another demarcation but the defendants did not do so. Consequently, the lis has to be decided on the basis of the material existing on record. There is unrebutted demarcation report proving that defendants have encroached upon the suit land belonging to the plaintiffs. In the absence of any other demarcation report, the aforesaid demarcation report Exhibit P-2 has been rightly relied upon by the courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding is supported by cogent reasons recorded by the courts below and is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Consequently, it does not warrant 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 accordingly dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 18th April, 2011 'raj'