IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.4164 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 19.4.2010 Jai Parkash ....Appellant Versus Krishan Kumar Saraf ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the appellant. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal. He has filed the instant appeal against the judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court dated 13.9.2005 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 6.5.2009. He pleads that he is in possession of the suit property as a teant at the monthly rent of Rs.20/- for the last 8 years. The defendant denies the tenancy and pleads that he along with Radhey Sham are joint owners of the suit property which they had got by way of a gift deed dated 13.9.1972. This fact is not denied by the appellant. In the proceedings before the trial court as also the before the Appellate Court the appellant failed to prove his tenancy. No evidence worth the name was produced by him to show that he was in possession of the property as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.20/- for the last 8 years R.S.A.No.4164 of 2009 (O&M) -2- which is the case set up by him in the pleadings, whereupon the Courts considering this aspect of the matter dismissed the suit. In appeal it has been contended that the appellant is in possession and therefore his suit ought to have been decreed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the possession having been admitted warranted the decreeing of the suit. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material on record. It is the case pleaded by the appellant in the affirmative that he is in possession of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.20/- for the last 8 years which fact he has concededly failed to substantiate by leading any cogent evidence on record. The ownership of the respondent is also not denied since this was another fact which was pleaded by the appellant. In the absence of any proof to show the legitimate possession of the appellant the Courts have rightly discarded the plea of the appellant and dismissed his suit. The building has been proved to be in a dilapidated condition. The injunction against a true owner especially in the absence of any proof to show legitimate possession has rightly been declined by the Courts below. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 19.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss