RSA No.2820 of 1988 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 2820 of 1988 Date of Decision: 30 - 11 - 2010 Lillu and others ....Appellants v. Kidar Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Bhoop Singh, Advocate for the respondent. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) Kidar Singh plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for possession of plot situated in Village Madlauda, Tehsil Panipat. The description of the plot has been given in head note of the plaint. It was also prayed that consequential relief of permanent injunction be also given and the defendants be restrained from raising any construction over the plot in dispute. It was pleaded that the defendant-appellants in October, 1977 had put their huts on the plot in dispute which led the plaintiff-respondent to file Civil Suit No.326 of 1981, titled as, `Kidar Singh v. Lilu Ram and others' and the suit was decreed against the defendant-appellants. The warrant of RSA No.2820 of 1988 [2] possession was also issued in pursuance of the decree and vide entry in the roznamcha, the possession was delivered to the plaintiff-respondent. A grievance was made that again the defendant-appellants committed a criminal trespass and a criminal complaint to this effect was filed. It was stated that the defendant-appellants made an attempt to raise construction over the disputed plot and decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. After conclusion of the pleadings, the trial Court formulated the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the plot in dispute on the grounds as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to bring the present suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 5. Relief. It is not disputed that both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff-respondent is owner of the suit property. Both the Courts below have relied upon the testimonies of PW1 Bhartu, plaintiff-respondent Kidar PW2 and PW3 Ram Sarup, Field Kanungo who proved the rapat roznamcha Ex.PW3/1, whereby possession was delivered to the plaintiff-respondent in execution of ex parte decree passed in Suit No.326 of 1981. The Courts also lend due credence to the deposition of PW4 Rajbir Singh, Patwari, who proved copy of rapat roznamcha Ex.PW4/1 showing possession of the plaintiff-respondent on the disputed plot. Both the Courts below also took into consideration jamabadi Ex.PA for the year 1977-78 and the decree passed by the civil court. RSA No.2820 of 1988 [3] Therefore, the trial Court after analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is owner of the suit land and the defendant-appellants were in possession of the suit plot. However, it was held that they were in illegal possession. The findings returned by the trial Court were upheld by the lower Appellate Court. Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate appearing for Mr.Yogesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the appellants has failed to formulate any substantial question of law which requires consideration of this Court. The finding of fact is based upon true appraisal of evidence. Hence, no interference is warranted and the present appeal is hereby dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 30, 2010. JUDGE RC