R.S.A. No. 3207 of 2004 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3207 of 2004 Date of decision: September 10, 2008 Gurcharan ..Appellant v. Smt. Kanta Devi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. The appellant-defendant is in appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below whereby suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking restrain against the appellant-defendant from raising any type of construction on the chabutra situated towards southern side of the building marked as ABCDEFG in the site plan attached with the plaint. As per the averments in the plaint, the shop behind the chabutra was let out to one Bakshi Ram by the respondents-plaintiffs who had sublet the same to the appellant-defendant. It was on this chabutra, which is in front of that shop towards the street that the appellant-defendant started raising walls, latrine, bathroom and septic tank. As against the claim of the respondents-plaintiffs, the appellant-defendant staked his claim to the property claiming adverse possession thereon. To prove the ownership of the property, the respondents-plaintiffs produced on record sale deed (Ex.P.2) and decree sheet (Ex. P.4) regarding transfer of ownership thereof in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs by way of partition. The evidence led by the appellant-defendant in the form of Ex. D.W.5/A, D.W.5/B, D.W.5/3 and R.S.A. No. 3207 of 2004 [2] D.W.5/4 was not relied upon for the reason that the appellant-defendant was not able to connect the property in dispute with the property in question in the aforesaid documents. The fact that the property in dispute is situated in the front side of the shop owned by the respondents-plaintiffs was not disputed. Keeping these facts in view, the suit filed by the respondents- plaintiffs was decreed and even the appeal before the learned Appellate Court, the appellant-defendant failed. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that respondents-plaintiffs claimed the title of the property on the basis of decree (Ex. P.4) which came into existence after the filing of the suit has no legs to stand, as it was merely in the partition proceedings after settlement that the property was transferred in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs, whereas the fact remains that the property in dispute is a chabutra in the front side of the shop owned by the respondents-plaintiffs regarding which, admittedly, in a petition filed by the respondents against tenant-Bakshi Ram and sub-tenant Gurcharan Singh, the present appellant, for eviction, the learned Rent Controller directed their eviction which order was upheld by the appellate authority and the tenant has filed revision before this Court bearing C.R. No. 1989 of 2004, which is pending before this Court. The appellant-defendant having failed to prove his right on the property as owner thereof enabling him to raise construction, in my opinion, the learned Courts below did not commit any error in decreeing the suit of the respondents-plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. ( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 10.9.2008 mk