RSA No.460 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.460 of 2010 Date of Decision: 17 th May, 2011 Babu Ram (through LRs) ….Appellant Versus Ramji Dass & others ….Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT: Mr. Ravinder Jain, for the appellant. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff-Babu Ram having failed in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant has since died and is represented by his legal representatives. Plaintiff has alleged that his brother Kundan Lal purchased the disputed site in the year 1961 and bequeathed the same to the plaintiff vide Will dated 12.08.1971. Plaintiff became owner in possession of the disputed site. His house fell down in June, 1994 while he was away. The plaintiff reconstructed the house in the year 1995. Again plaintiff had to remain away for two years at the house of his in-laws. In his absence, defendants No.1 to 5 took possession of the suit house and got changed the Municipal record in -1- RSA No.460 of 2010 their names. In September, 2002, the plaintiff asked the defendants to handover possession of the suit property to him, but the defendants refused. Accordingly, plaintiff filed suit for possession of the suit property along with permanent injunction etc. Defendants No.1 to 5 contested the suit and broadly denied the plaint allegations. It was pleaded that defendants are in possession of the suit property for more than 50 years. They constructed their house after obtaining sanction from the Municipality on 15.01.1967. After some time, defendant No.1 re-constructed the roof of his house and gave one shop to his son Vijay Kumar- defendant No.2, who has taken electricity connection there on 29.01.1993. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide judgment and decree dated 13.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that plaintiff’s brother purchased the suit property and bequeathed it -2- RSA No.460 of 2010 to the plaintiff. It was also contended that the suit property stood in the name of plaintiff’s brother Kundan Lal in Municipal records. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. The property mentioned in various documents referred to by counsel for the plaintiff-appellant is not linked with the suit property. Dimensions and boundaries of the suit property are different from dimensions and boundaries of the property mentioned in the documents of the plaintiff. In fact, dimensions and boundaries mentioned in valuation form Exhibit P-2 on the basis of which plaintiff’s brother purchased the suit property are different from the dimensions and boundaries mentioned in plaintiff’s own site plan Exhibit P-3. According to document Exhibit P-2, northern and southern sides of the property measured 18 feets 6 inches each, but according to site plan Exhibit P-3, northern and southern sides of the suit property measured 31 feet each. Similarly eastern and western sides of the property mentioned in Exhibit P-2 measured 31 feet each, but eastern and western sides of suit property mentioned in site plan Exhibit P-3 measured 12 feed 6 inches and 14 feet respectively. Similarly, except southern side street and western side road, the other two boundaries of East and North of the suit property have not been linked with the property purchased by plaintiff’s brother. Property mentioned in house tax -3- RSA No.460 of 2010 assessment register, relined on by the plaintiff, has also not been linked with the suit property. On the other hand, defendants have led cogent evidence in support of their version. Building plan Exhibit D-4 submitted by defendant No.1 was sanctioned by Municipality vide letter dated 19.01.1967 Exhibit D-3. The property mentioned in this site plan Exhibit D-4 tallies with suit property. Defendant No.1 after obtaining sanction in January, 1967 raised construction in the suit property. The instant suit was filed on 13.08.2005 i.e. 38 years after defendant No.1 raised construction. Plaintiff’s version that he reconstructed the house in 1995 and defendants occupied the suit property in or around year 2000 is completely falsified by the aforesaid documents of the defendants. On the contrary, defendant No.1 is also recorded to be owner in possession of the suit property in house tax assessment registers for 1988-89 Exhibit D-5 and 1983-84 Exhibit D- 6. The property mentioned in these documents may not be directly linked with the suit property as in the case of the plaintiff’s documents. However, coupled with building plan Exhibit D-4 sanctioned by Municipality vide resolution/letter Exhibit D-3, these documents prove that defendant No.1 is owner of the suit property. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he is owner in possession of the suit property. -4- RSA No.460 of 2010 Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below non- suiting the plaintiff is justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons recorded by both the lower courts. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Consequently, the said finding does not call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 17th May, 2011 ‘raj’ -5-