RSA No.3870 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3870 of 2008 Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Amrik Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Jogindero & others ......Respondent(s) RSA No.790 of 2009 Amrik Singh ......Appellant(s) Versus Gajjan Singh & others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment shall dispose of two regular second appeals i.e. RSA Nos.3870 of 2008 and 790 of 2009 which have arisen out of one common judgment dated 3.5.2008 passed by the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.35 of 1997, against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1996 passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.292 of 27.9.1993 titled as Gajjan Singh and others v. Amrik Singh and others and Civil Suit No.19 of 1990 titled as Amrik Singh v. Jogindero and others. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are carved out from RSA No.3870 of 2008 arising out of civil suit No.19 of 1990 titled as Amrik Singh v. Jogindero and others. Civil Suit No.19 of 1990 for possession of the suit land was filed by the appellant against the respondents alleging therein that he had RSA No.3870 of 2008 2 purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 15.6.1989 and the respondents have forcibly dispossessed him from the suit land whereas Civil Suit No.292 of 17.9.1993 for declaration was filed by the respondents pleading that they were owners in possession of the suit land and the appellants had no right, title or interest in the suit land who were alleging that they had purchased it vide sale deed dated 15.6.1989 whereas no such sale deed was executed by them. From the pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed by the trial Court. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claim. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit i.e. Civil Suit No.19of 1990 for possession filed by the appellant and decreed the Civil Suit No.292 of 27.9.1993 for declaration filed by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved against both the judgments, the appellants preferred appeals before the Lower Appellate Court which were also dismissed. On appreciation of evidence which was recorded in Civil Suit No.292 of 27.9.1993, the trial Court found that execution of the alleged sale deed dated 15.6.1989 in favour of the appellant was not proved and resultantly, Civil Suit No.19 of 1990 filed by the appellant was dismissed whereas Civil Suit No.292 of 27.9.1993 filed by the respondents was decreed. Still not satisfied, the appellants have preferred these appeals against the common judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. On appreciation of evidence, the concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the appellants have failed to prove the sale deed dated 15.6.1989 on the basis of which they RSA No.3870 of 2008 3 were claiming their right to the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any perversity or material irregularity in the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which requires interference by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 100 of the CPC. Thus, I find no merit in these appeals. No substantial question of law arises. No other point was urged. Dismissed. May 6, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE