IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3430 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 24, 2009 Boota Singh ....Appellant Versus Surjit Kaur and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate and Mr. D.R.Singla, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The plaintiff-appellant had filed the suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants-respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit property as it was he, who was owner in possession thereof. According to him, the suit property was ancestral property in his hands. He had constructed a room besides tethering cattle over the suit property. A gate had been installed and even fire wood, cow dung cakes, etc. were stacked in the suit property. The defendants were threatening to dispossess him from the suit property for which they had no right. He, accordingly, prayed for a decree of permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants. In their written statement, they disputed the locus standi of the plaintiff to institute the suit. According to them, Bawa Singh and his father Jangir Singh were owners in possession of the suit property. They had delivered the possession of the suit property to Ajaib Singh defendant after receiving an amount of Rs.20,400/-. R.S.A. No. 3430 of 2009 -2- Agreement to sell was executed as per which Ajaib Singh defendant could get the sale deed executed and registered as and when he wanted. The said defendant was in possession of the suit property since 5.1.1995. Both the defendants denied that it was the plaintiff who was owner and in possession of the suit property. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, the learned trial Court held that the plaintiff miserably failed to establish that he was in established possession over the suit property. Therefore, he was not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Consequently, the suit was dismissed. Even the first appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the learned lower appellate Court. The plaintiff is now before this Court by way of second appeal, which he has filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In order to establish that the suit property was ancestral property belonging to the plaintiff and he was in possession of the same, the plaintiff had stepped into the witness box as PW3 besides examining Jeet Singh PW1 and Charan Singh PW2. He also relied upon the testimony of PW4 Shivdarshan Bansal, who was appointed as the Local Commissioner by the learned trial Court. According to PW1 Jeet Singh, the suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiff. However, in his cross-examination he stated that he had not seen the suit property. As per PW2 Charan Singh, Jangir Singh and Bawa Singh did not own any residential house, other than the suit property and Jangir Singh had even solemnized the marriages of his daughters on the suit property. During his cross-examination, PW3 Buta Singh (plaintiff) stated that Jangir Singh was his uncle whereas Bawa Singh was his cousin. He R.S.A. No. 3430 of 2009 -3- admitted that Jangir Singh had died in the suit property whereas Bawa Singh used to visit the village regularly as he was residing with his daughters. He also went on to state that he was residing in the suit property and had constructed kitchen in a room whereas the property owned by deceased Jangir Singh adjoined the suit property, which was in possession of the defendants. It is, thus, clear that the present suit had been filed by the plaintiff with regard to some property, other than the property of Jangir Singh. As regards the report of the Local Commissioner, it may be noticed that PW1 Jeet Singh stated in his cross-examination that the Local Commissioner had prepared the report by sitting in the house of the plaintiff. Moreover, as per the Local Commissioner himself, he was required by the Court to report with regard to possession. In the same breath, he stated that he was not directed to give report with regard to possession and he had not given correct report as per order of the Court. The cumulative reading of the aforementioned is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff failed to establish that he was in possession of the property in dispute. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below in that regard are reaffirmed and upheld. The various substantial questions of law as formulated by the appellant do not arise for determination. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 24, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1