REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 358 of 2008 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 358 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 25, 2008 Devinder Pal Singh .. Appellant v. Mohinder Singh and another .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Shri Raj Paul Kansal, Advocate, for the appellant. PRITAM PAL, J. This Regular Second Appeal by plaintiff-Devinder Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.1.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby, an appeal against judgment and decree dated 10.11.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, was accepted and the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the respondent- defendants from interfering in the suit property, comprised in khasra No. 27//1, was dismissed. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned judgment and decree, it is apparent that the suit- property with specific boundaries was sold by the brothers of the plaintiff- appellant to Jinder Singh son of Bhag Singh, who then further sold the REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No. 358 of 2008 2 .. same to Mohinder Singh son of Labhu Ram (respondent No.1) vide sale- deed Ex.D1 and ultimately, the same property was sold to Bhai Daya Singh Charitable Trust, respondent No.2, vide registered sale-deed Ex.D2, where boundary walls/rooms are proved to have been constructed. In fact, here in the instant case, the appellant has failed to adduce any evidence, which could show that the suit property is part of his khasra No. 27//1, as alleged in the plaint, whereas, the case of the contesting respondent, from the very beginning, is that he is in possession of the property, shown in the registered sale deed dated 7.8.1998 (Ex.D2) and not beyond that. In these given facts and circumstances, the first Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant by holding that he failed to prove the identity of the suit-property, either by boundaries or by any other specific description. However, a suggestion was given on behalf of the appellant to DW-1 Mohinder Singh that the suit-property falls in his khasra number and this fact has no where been established on the file. In the given facts and circumstances, no interference is called for in the aforesaid findings, arrived at by the first Appellate Court. Moreso, learned counsel for the appellant could not make out any substantial question of law, for consideration by this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. [ PRITAM PAL ] April 25, 2008 JUDGE som