RSA No.3840 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3840 of 2007 Date of decision: July 8, 2011. Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar ... Appellant(s) v. M/s Om Parkash Krishan Kumar & Anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): Present regular second appeal has been filed by Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar – defendant No.2 to the suit against the judgments and decrees by both the courts below dated 7.2.2006 and 4.10.2007 respectively. Respondent No.1 instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying therein that respondent No.2/defendant No.1 and the present appellant-defendant No.2 be restrained from interfering in the actual, peaceful and physical possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and he be not forcibly dispossessed from the suit property. A further injunction was sought that the defendants be restrained from alienating, creating any charge by way of sale, lease, mortgage, gift or otherwise in any many whatsoever over the suit property, description of which has been given in the head note RSA No.3840 of 2007 -: 2 :- of the plaint. It was specifically pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 that the property in dispute was purchased vide a registered sale deed dated 30.6.1990 from Pritam Singh etc. for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and he is in actual physical possession of the property. The appellant Municipal Council, defendant No.2 to the suit, filed a written statement and raised a specific plea that land measuring 21 bighas and 19 biswas at village Gobindpuri was acquired for constructing 398 cheap tenements for refugees who had migrated from West Punjab (now in Pakistan). It was further stated that by another acquisition, land measuring 81 bighas and 2 biswas comprising in khasra No.844 to 858 situated at village Tejli was acquired. It was stated that the land acquired at village Tejli after consolidation proceedings was assigned khasra No.908. The present suit concerns the land which was acquired and was situated at village Tejli. Learned trial court, after conclusion of the pleadings, had drawn the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as alleged? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has concealed material facts from this court? OPD 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 5. Reliref. Plaintiff examined Devinder Kumar as PW1 and on behalf of the plaintiff, his son Parveen Kumar Mittal appeared as PW2, as attorney of the RSA No.3840 of 2007 -: 3 :- plaintiff. Various documents were also tendered by the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 also led evidence and placed various documents on record. After the evidence was led by the parties, crucial question which confronted the courts below was as to on which khasra number the property is situated and whether the defendants had any vested right in such khasra number or not. The two courts below concluded that the suit property in question forms part of khasra No.909 and 910. For holding so, reliance was placed upon sale deed and various documents tendered and produced by respondents. The courts further held that as per the stand of the appellant- defendant the land was acquired only qua Khasra No.908 situated at village Tejli. the lower appellate court while concurring with the trial court held as under:- “42. I do not find any substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the title of Piare Lal was even defective qua khasra number 910 because the copy of sale deed Ex.P4 dated 26.9.1974 clearly shows that Piare Lal had purchased the entire area measuring 2 bighas 13 biswas and if some confusion has been created in the subsequent sale deed dated 27.2.1980, copy Ex.D2 that is no ground to create any defect in the title of Piare Lal qua khasra number 910. 43. I do not find any substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that the suit plot cannot be the part of khasra No.910 and it can either be 908 or 909. As already mentioned, the demarcation report Ex.D16 carried no evidentiary value and except that there is no other evidence on the file to show that RSA No.3840 of 2007 -: 4 :- the suit plot is the part of khasra number 908. By describing the properties mentioned in the sale deed Ex.D1, site plan Ex.P2 and sale deed Ex.P5, learned counsel for the appellant has tried to develop his arguments which are simply the inferences and not any cogent and reliable proof. 44. From the perusal of site plan Ex.P2 it comes out that the plot in dispute has been shown on the northern side of the plot of Ajay Kumar whose sale deed is Ex.P5 and this sale deed relates to khasra number 909. The sale deed of Joginder Singh, defendant No.1 is Ex.D1. In this sale deed plot of Krishan Lal has been shown on the eastern side which is stated to be comprised of khasra number 910. But, in the judgment Ex.D12 it has been held that said plot is not the part of khasra number 910 and no khasra number has been mentioned in the sale deed Ex.D1 relating to defendant No.1 Joginder Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the suit land is either part of khasra no.908 or 909, but is not part of khasra number 910. As already mentioned, there is no evidence to show that the suit plot is part of khasra no.908. For the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the suit plot is part of khasra no.909, that will also not advance the case of appellant as appellant has no right, title or interest qua khasra no.909. Moreover, on the one hand, learned counsel for appellant has contended that Piare Lal had no title to khasra number 909 and on the other hand he is contending that on the basis of sale deed Ex.P5 Piare Lal has sold the plot comprised of khasra number 909 to Ajay RSA No.3840 of 2007 -: 5 :- Kumar which is a self contradictory argument and carries no substance.” Shri Jagdish Manchanda, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has failed to point any document from which it could be inferred that the Municipal Council, Yamuna Nagar had any right or claim over khasra Nos.909/910. As per the sale deed, property conveyed to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 fall in khasra No.910. The two courts below have appreciated the evidence and have also interpreted judgment Ex.D12 on which much reliance has been placed by the appellant. Even though this Court, in second appeal, cannot re- appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence, however, considering the fact that the Municipal Council has come in appeal and the property is claimed as public property, this Court gave ample opportunity to the counsel for the appellant to show any piece of evidence from which it can be held that the property in question falls either in khasra No.908 or the appellant- defendants have any claim, title or interest in khasra Nos.909 and 910. Counsel for the appellant, having made best efforts, could not satisfy this Court on this score. On the touchstone of the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is of the view that no question of law much less the substantial, as proposed, arise in the present appeal. Hence, no interference is warranted. The present appeal is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 8, 2011. Judge kadyan