RSA No.442 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.442 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 19, 2011 Sumer Singh .....Appellant v. Gram Panchayat Kaimri .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.T.C.Dhanwal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 14.9.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 3.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed this suit against Gram Panchayat with the averment that he is owner in possession of a plot in dispute, marked with letters ABCD and shown as red in the site plan attached with the plaint and that the respondent-Gram Panchayat is having no concern with the same and that rather it intends to interfere in his possession illegally and forcibly. RSA No.442 of 2011(O&M) -2- On notice being issued, respondent-Gram Panchayat filed written statement by taking the plea that the land in dispute is part of shamlat deh left for common purposes for inhabitants of the village and that appellant-plaintiff intends to forcibly occupy the same by constructing boundary wall. On appreciation of evidence, suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that the property in dispute was purchased by appellant- plaintiff vide sale-deed Ex.P2 and hence, respondent-Gram Panchayat is having no concern with the same. However, the said plea has been duly discussed by both the Courts below. Sale deed Ex.P2 is not proved to be relating to the property in dispute, as described in the site plan, attached with the plaint as no such boundaries of the property has been shown in the sale deed Ex.P2. Plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. Hence, on the basis of sale deed Ex.P2, it cannot be said that appellant-plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute. It is a vacant plot and even if it is taken that the appellant- plaintiff is using the same for putting the rubbish, it cannot be said that he is having right to raise construction over the same. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent RSA No.442 of 2011(O&M) -3- reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 19.10.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge