Regular Second Appeal No. 4522 of 2005 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 4522 of 2005 Date of Decision: 10.11.2008 Kuldip Singh …Appellant Versus Sukhjinderjit and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering into peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over the suit property detailed and described in the head note of the plaint. The suit was decreed by learned trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present appellant had filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed. Respondent/plaintiff appeared in the Court and made a categoric statement that he is in possession over the disputed property as the possession accrued to him through the lease deed. He also placed on record rent receipts Ex.PW3/C to Ex.PW3/I. It was further Regular Second Appeal No. 4522 of 2005 2 stated by him that he had deposited the rent of the suit property with the Wakf Board regularly. To counter this, appellant/defendant appeared and relied upon the photographs to show that he was standing over the suit property. Learned trial Court noticed that DW.1 Kuldeep Singh in his cross- examination admitted that he has got no proof of ownership regarding the plot in dispute. It was further stated by him that the sale deed can be produced but the alleged registered sale deed qua the plot was not produced before the Court. Learned trial Court came to conclusion that in cross- examination, evasive reply has been given to the material aspects of the case and defendant could not show ownership or possession over the disputed property. DW.2 Balbir Singh also deposed in the same manner and learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to a conclusion that no reliance can be placed upon the photographs Mark D1 and Mark D2. No photographer was produced. Even the negatives were also not brought on the record. The findings of learned trial Court have been concurred by learned First Appellate Court. Learned First Appellate Court also negated the argument that the suit property is not identifiable. Learned lower Appellate Court placed reliance upon site plan which was on the back of the lease deed Ex.PW.3/A and held that the boundaries of the suit properties tallied with the site plan. Therefore, learned lower Appellate Court held that even the arguments that the suit property is not identifiable has not been pleaded. Regular Second Appeal No. 4522 of 2005 3 Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant has stated that even though the two Courts below held him not to be in possession, the material substantial question of law which this Court should ponder over it that as to how the plaintiff has come into possession over the suit land. He has further stated that ownership has unnecessarily given importance by two Courts below. Two parties, plaintiff and defendant have made assertions regarding the possession. Both have led the oral evidence. For weighing the oral evidence, the Court has to look into the attending circumstances. Lease deed and continuous payment of the rent, issuance of rent receipts by Wakf Board had loaded the dice in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. Therefore, the two Courts below have rightly came to conclusion that inspite of the assertions, there is no evidence with the appellant/defendant, and even he has failed to prove the photographs. Therefore, rightly concurrent finding of fact has been returned in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The question of law raised by Mr. Malkeet Singh cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case which were rightly appreciated by the Courts below to come to the conclusion that the defendant has no concern with the disputed land. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 10, 2008 “DK”