Regular Second Appeal No. 4668 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4688 of 2009 Date of decision : March 19, 2010 Amarjit alias Amri ....Appellant versus Maharaj Krishan ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Amarjit alias Amri defendant having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed instant second appeal. Respondent Maharaj Krishan filed suit for possession of the disputed shop by ejectment of defendant therefrom alleging that the plaintiff purchased disputed shop from Gomti Dass vide registered sale deed dated 21.12.1994. The defendant is tenant of the disputed shop under the plaintiff on rent of Rs 300/- per month. Defendant's tenancy was terminated by serving notice but the defendant failed to vacate the demised property. The defendant, inter alia, pleaded that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was denied that Gomti Dass was owner of the suit property. Sale deed executed by Gomti Dass in Regular Second Appeal No. 4668 of 2009 -2- favour of plaintiff was also denied. It was pleaded that plaintiff has no concern with the disputed shop and defendant is owner thereof as it was allotted to the defendant pursuant to his claim as displaced person. Termination of tenancy by service of notice was also denied. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 27.7.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. The plaintiff produced on record sale deed dated 21.12.1994 vide which he purchased suit property from Gomti Dass. Execution of the sale deed 21.12.1994 in favour of plaintiff is duly proved. On the other hand, defendant claimed to have got suit property by allotment to him in lieu of defendant's claim of property left in Pakistan. However, the defendant could not place any document on record to substantiate the said plea. On the other hand, the defendant stated that he had not seen any document of title of the disputed property. The defendant could not even disclose any property left by him or his father in Pakistan. The defendant even stated that he never appeared before the Settlement Officer or Claim Officer to stake any claim to property in lieu of property left in Pakistan. The defendant rather came up with a new version in the witness box that suit property was allotted to his father against claim of property left in Pakistan. However, the defendant could not substantiate the said claim as well. Regular Second Appeal No. 4668 of 2009 -3- The defendant also alleged that there was partition among Gomti Dass and his three brothers through partition deed in which land and residential houses only were the subject matter. However, no such partition deed has either been produced in evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Gomti Dass used to affix his signatures in Urdu language but the sale deed Ex. P1 in favour of plaintiff allegedly executed by Gomti Dass bears his signatures in English language and therefore, the sale deed is not proved to have been executed by Gomti Dass. The contention cannot be accepted because Gomti Dass never challenged the said sale deed. On the other hand, the defendant himself admitted that first page of the said sale deed bears signatures of Gomti Dass in Urdu language. Lower appellate court has observed that the sale deed besides bearing signatures of Gomti Dass in Urdu also bears his signatures in English. Consequently, it cannot be said that the aforesaid sale deed is not proved to have been executed by Gomti Dass in favour of the plaintiff. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below in favour of plaintiff-respondent. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 19, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'