RSA No.1758 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1758 of 2011 (O&M). Decided on: April 20, 2011. Charan Singh. .. Appellant VERSUS Sri Ram and others. .. Respondents * * * 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.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and injunction has been decreed by the Courts below. The Courts below have even ordered the delivery of vacant possession of the property in question to the plaintiff-respondent on the ground that the co-defendant of defendant No.2, appellant have been able to get the . . . 1 RSA No.1758 of 2011 (O&M) entries of ownership incorporated in Municipal Committee record, Meham, fraudulently without there being any order passed by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Meham, as per the admission of PW.3 Balraj Singh, Clerk of Municipal Committee, Meham. Counsel for the appellant-defendant No.2, has vehemently contended that the appellant is a bona fide purchaser from Jai Singh, defendant No.1, as Jai Singh was recorded as owner of the property in dispute as per the entries of assessment register of Municipal Committee, Meham. A concurrent finding of fact has been arrived at by the Courts below that Mange Ram, father of the plaintiff-respondent was recorded as owner in the assessment register of the Municipal Committee, Meham. There being no orders of Secretary, Municipal Committee, Meham, regarding the change of ownership of property in the name of defendant No.1 Jai Singh, his name was incorporated as owner. Claim of Jai Singh, defendant No.1, that he had become owner by adverse possession has been rejected by the Courts below. Since defendant No.2, has stepped into the shoes of defendant No.1, and claims ownership on the basis of the illegal entries of the municipal record, the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for declaration and mandatory injunction directing the defendant-appellant to hand over the possession to the original owner. No ground is made out for interference in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the Courts below regarding the name of Jai Singh, having been wrongly incorporated in the . . . 2 RSA No.1758 of 2011 (O&M) Municipal record and replacement of name of appellant-defendant No.2, Charan Singh in place of Jai Singh. No substantial question of law could be raised or established. Dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, period of 30 days awarded by the lower appellate Court to vacate the property is extended by two months. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 20, 2011. rka . . . 3