R.S.A.No. 3443 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3443 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.8.2009 Chand Ram ......Appellant Versus Suraj Bhan and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Suraj Bhan filed a suit for possession, which was decreed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.) Bahadurgarh vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2004. In appeal filed by defendants No.1 and 2, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge-I, Jhajjar vide judgment and decree dated 4.3.2008. Hence, the present appeal by defendant No.1. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- R.S.A.No. 3443 of 2008 2 “2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as emanating from the pleading of the parties are that the plaintiff and the defendants No.5 to 12 were owners in possession of the plot No.387 measuring 4 kanals 1 marla comprised in khewat No.364/344 and Khatoni No.463 situated within the revenue estate of village Bhaproda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh as per the jamabandi for the year 1996-97. The defendants No.1 to 4 were alleged to have encroached upon this plot on the area shown with letters ABCDE, EDGF, DCHG and CIH respectively in the site plan Ex.P3. They were alleged to have raised illegal structures thereon in December 1999. When they did not remove the illegal structure therefrom the plaintiff brought the present suit seeking a decree for possession of the above area allegedly encroached upon by the defendants No. 1 to 4. 3. The defendants No. 1, 2 and 3-A having put up appearance filed their written statement. Therein, besides raising certain legal objections they pleaded that they did not encroach upon any portion of the above plot No.387. They claimed themselves to be owners in possession of the above portions. They further pleaded that these portions had fallen to their lot in the year 1953 and since that day they have been in R.S.A.No. 3443 of 2008 3 possession thereof after raising the construction thereon. They further pleaded that the alleged portions formed part of plot No.1497 and the plaintiff and the proforma defendants No. 5 to 12 have nothing to do with the title or possession of these portions. With these averments these defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. Defendants No. 5 to 12 in their written statement admitted the claim of the plaintiff in toto. Defendant No.4 also admitted the claim of the plaintiff in toto as per his statement given after putting up appearance before the lower court.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession in his favour and against the defendants on the grounds as alleged in the plaint? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has nocause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD R.S.A.No. 3443 of 2008 4 6. Whether the plaintiff has not come in the court with clean hands? OPD 7. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of a suit land since 1953 from the time of partition of abadi of village, as detailed in para No.4 of the written statement ? OPD 8. Relief. ” After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit. The case of the plaintiff was that the plaintiff and defendants No. 5 to 12 were owners of the plot No.387. Defendants No. 1 to 4 had, however, encroached upon the plot over the area marked with letters ABCDE, EDGF, DCHG and CIH as shown in the site plan Ex.P-3. In order to substantiate their case, plaintiffs examined PW-4 Raghbir Singh, Halqa Girdawar. The said witness deposed that on 3.9.2000, he was posted as Halqa Girdawar in village Bhaproda . He had demarcated plot No.387 in the presence of the parties to the suit, Halqa Patwari and other respectables of the village. The said witness proved his report Ex.P4, attendance sheet Ex.P-5 and site plan Ex. P-6. PW-4, in his cross-examination, deposed that the defendants had not affixed their signatures on the report. The said witness in his report opined that there was illegal encroachment on the part of defendants Chand Ram, Dharambir and Tekan. R.S.A.No. 3443 of 2008 5 Learned trial Court, after perusing the attendance sheet Ex.P-5, has observed that as per the same, the demarcation was conducted in the presence of respectables of the village apart from the parties to the suit. In order to counter the said report, defendants, on the other hand, examined DW-4 Satpal Singh, Kanungo, who has submitted his demarcation report Ex.DW 4/A. As per the said witness, construction had been raised by the defendants in plot No.1497/1 and 2. However, the said witness admitted that he had not given any notice to the plaintiff at the time of demarcation. In these circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge, rightly held that no reliance could be placed on the reports submitted by DW-4 as the demarcation had been done at the back of the plaintiff. The finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence on record, calls for no interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 10, 2009 anita