RSA No.3335 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3335 of 2009. Decided on: January 19, 2011. Piara Lal. .. Appellant VERSUS Dharam Chand. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.R.S.Athwal, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for permanent injunction filed against the defendant-respondent pertaining to the property mentioned in heading of the plaint has been dismissed by . . . 1 RSA No.3335 of 2009 the Courts below holding that the plaintiff has not been able to prove his ownership and possession over the suit land as depicted in the site plan EX.P1, the Courts below have arrived at a conclusion that the defendant-respondent has been able to describe the property as shown in EX.D1 having purchased 4 marlas vide sale deed executed in favour of defendant and depicted in site plan EX.D1, on the basis of the defendant having been able to prove better possessory title, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by the Courts below. No substantial question of law is involved in the present case warranting interference in the second appeal. Counsel for the appellant has further contended that the defendant-respondent has not been able to establish better possessory title than the plaintiff-appellant on a portion measuring 14 feet on the North and South and measuring 16 feet and 15'.9” on East and West respectively which is shown on the Southern side of the portion purchased by defendant in EX.D1. Counsel for the defendant-respondent, on the instructions of his client, has submitted that the defendant- respondent had never contested his claim qua the portion on the Southern side which is stated to be belonging to Sunder. It is also submitted on behalf of the defendant-respondent that the defendant- respondent has never made any attempt to encroach upon the land beyond the land owned by the defendant-respondent pursuant to the sale deed depicted in EX.D1. . . . 2 RSA No.3335 of 2009 Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff-appellant qua the portion shown on the Southern side of the property purchased by the defendant-respondent, at least, be decreed. I have considered the above said circumstance. Since the defendant-respondent has not raised any claim regarding the property shown to be belonging to Sunder on the Southern, it will be open to the plaintiff to claim his right, title or interest, if any, qua any other party. The plaintiff-appellant present in the Court, has undertaken not to encroach or usurp the land shown on South end of his property as shown in site plan EX.D1. In view of the above circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff-appelant stands dismissed. However, in view of the no claim having been raised regarding the property measuring 16'.0” X 15”.9”, shown on the Southern side, it will be open to the plaintiff-appellant to claim his right, title or interest in the property without interfering in the property of defendant- respondent. Dismissed with above said clarification. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 19, 2011. rka . . . 3