R. S. A. No. 1703 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1703 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 30, 2010 Bahal Singh .... Appellant Vs. Amar Singh and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Bahal Singh – defendant no.2 has filed the instant second appeal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. It was undisputed in the written statement that parties are owners of adjoining lands, the plaintiff being owner of 4 bighas land comprised of khasra no.2298/1836 (1-6) and 2300/1837 (2-14), whereas defendants are owners of 6 bighas 6 biswas land comprised of khasra no.2339/1834 (4-10) and 2341/1835 (1-6). The plaintiff's case is that the defendants have encroached upon 17 biswas 5 biswasies land of the plaintiff. Accordingly, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit for possession of the said land and first appeal preferred by defendant no.2 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, R. S. A. No. 1703 of 2010 2 Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant no.2 has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Both parties led oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. However, plaintiff also examined Narinderpal Singh, the then Field Kanungo (PW-3), who had made demarcation at the spot. He proved his demarcation report Ex.P-2 and Naksha Tafawat Ex.P-3 along with Presence Sheet Ex.P-1. He stated that as per demarcation report, he found that defendants were in wrongful possession of 17 biswas 5 biswasies land of the plaintiff. The said demarcation report has not been rebutted by the defendants. Defendant no.2 was present at the time of said demarcation, although he refused to sign the Presence Sheet. Both the courts below have found that the said demarcation was carried out in accordance with standing order of Financial Commissioner. The Field Kanungo, who conducted the demarcation, fixed three pucca points and then demarcated the spot. It has been clearly stated in demarcation report and Naksha Tafawat that defendants are in wrongful possession of 17 biswas 5 biswasies land of the plaintiff. The said concurrent finding by both the courts below is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that defendants are in possession of only 6 bighas 6 biswas land, which is admittedly owned by them. The contention cannot be accepted because from the demarcation report and other evidence, it is proved that defendants are in wrongful possession of 17 biswas 5 biswasies land of the plaintiff. The said finding, as noticed herein above, is justified by the evidence on record and does not R. S. A. No. 1703 of 2010 3 warrant interference in the second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 30, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE