C.M. No. 10445-C of 2010 and RSA No.3566 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No. 10445-C of 2010 and RSA No.3566 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 06, 2010 Shiv Kumar son of Hari Singh .... Appellant Vs. Risal Singh son of Lalji .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH * * * Present : Mr. K.S.Malik-I, Advocate for the appellant. * * * AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 10445-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned. C.M. stands disposed of. RSA No. 3566 of 2010 In this appeal, the challenge has been made to the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhajjar dated 15.06.2009, vide which suit for possession in respect of residential house No. 49 has been decreed in favour of the respondent, which decree was challenged by the appellant in Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 before the Lower Appellate Court. C.M. No. 10445-C of 2010 and RSA No.3566 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar vide order dated 11.05.2010 holding that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed property bought through sale. The findings recorded by the Courts below are concurrent. While deciding the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court had further taken note of a fact that the appellant is claiming himself to be the owner in possession of house No. 51, whereas the decree has been passed for possession of house No. 49. This fact could not be disputed by the counsel for the appellant. The Lower Appellate Court in para-11 of the judgment has held as follows:- “11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the case file carefully, I am of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed as learned trial Court has not fell into any error while passing the impugned judgment and decree. DW1 Shiv Kumar during the course of cross examination has admitted the case of the plaintiff and has stated that in the year 1961 disputed property was auctioned and same was purchased by the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs. 1800/-. Admission is the best evidence. Further more, defendant has pleaded that he is owner and in possession of the house bearing No. 51. There is no dispute regarding the ownership and possession of house No. 51, because plaintiff is claiming his ownership over house No. 49 and he has sought possession of house No. 49. Thus from the perusal of Ex. P2 sale certificate coupled with the admission of the defendant, I have no hesitation to C.M. No. 10445-C of 2010 and RSA No.3566 of 2010 (O&M) 3 hold that plaintiff is owner of the disputed house. Thus, no interference is warranted by this Court in the impugned judgment and decree, which has rightly been passed by the learned lower Court after applying judicial mind and going through the evidence led by the parties and law laid down on the subject.” In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. September 06, 2010 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) pj JUDGE