RSA No.1061 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1061 of 2009 Date of Decision: 3.11.2009 Gurcharan Kaur .....Appellant Vs. Tara Singh and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) CM No.3066-C of 2009 For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 16 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. RSA No.1061 of 2009 The appellant challenges judgements and decrees dated 5.3.2008 and 16.9.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sardulgarh and the District Judge, Mansa, dismissing her suit and her appeal. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction praying that the respondents be restrained from taking illegal and forcible possession, demolishing her house or from alienating the suit property in any manner. The appellant pleaded that the suit land was purchased by her RSA No.1061 of 2009 2 brothers Rajvir Singh and Gurbachan Singh, vide sale deed No.847 dated 20.11.1992. They constructed a room, a toilet and a boundary wall. As they have passed away, the appellant and Balwant Singh have become owners of half share each. In response, the defendant-respondents denied the averments in the plaint and pleaded that the suit property is situated in Khasra No.267 measuring 2 kanals 3 marlas. Out of this land, 10 marlas have been donated by the Gram Panchayat for a school and the rest of the land is in their possession after it was allotted to them in consolidation proceedings. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court held that Amrik Singh, the appellant's vendor, had no right, title or interest in the suit land and, therefore, the sale deed dated 20.11.1992 did not convey any right, title or interest to Rajvir Singh and Gurbachan Singh, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant. It was also held that the suit land is situated in Khasra no.267, out of which 10 marlas have been allotted to a school, whereas the other land is in the possession of the respondents. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 16.9.2008, the learned District Judge, Mansa, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the courts below have erred in dismissing the suit and the appeal. The appellant has led clear and cogent evidence to establish her ownership and possession and even if there is some defect in the sale deed,the courts below should have protected her possession. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the RSA No.1061 of 2009 3 impugned judgements, considered the so called questions of law but express my inability to hold that the impugned judgements suffer from any error of law or facts. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to be in possession on the basis of a sale deed. Apart from a fact that it has been held that Amrik Singh, her vendor, does not have any right, title or interest in the suit land, the appellant has failed to establish her possession. The courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that respondent nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit land, and have raised construction. The entire evidence on record has been considered while holding that the appellant has failed to prove her possession. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor arbitrary. As no question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 3.11.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE