R.S.A.No.1150 of 2010(O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.1150 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 22.2.2011 Ajit Singh ......Appellant Versus Amar Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Deepak Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from illegally and forcibly dispossessing him from the suit property marked as ABCD in the site plan. The plaintiff alleged that he was using the suit property for storing manure and cow dung cakes. The plaintiff was in possession of the plot in dispute since the time immemorial. The defendant, in his written statement, averred that the plot in question was in possession of the defendant. The defendant had raised a boundary wall surrounding the suit property and was using the same for tethering cattle. R.S.A.No.1150 of 2010(O&M) 2 On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 3. Relief.” The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2005. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. The case of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the suit property. However, the plaintiff failed to establish his possession over the suit property. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence on record, have given a finding of fact that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. While appearing in the witness box, plaintiff had alleged that he had purchased the suit property from 3-4 persons. However, the said sale deeds were not produced on record by the plaintiff. Mere user of the land by the plaintiff by storing cow dung cakes or manure does not establish that the plaintiff was in possession of the R.S.A.No.1150 of 2010(O&M) 3 suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal, which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE February 22, 2011 anita