IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1029 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : January 31, 2008 Bharat Singh ....Appellant versus Rambai and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate for the appellant Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by plaintiff Bhart Singh is directed against judgment and decree dated 4.1.2002 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rewari, whereby a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction was decreed to the effect that plaintiff and proforma defendants No. 17 to 19 are owner in possession of the property shown in blue colour marked by letters “WCYZ” in site-plan Ex.PW-3A. Further, the contesting-defendants were also restrained from raising any construction and from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff over the property shown in blue colour in the site plan (Ex.PW-3A) of the plaintiff marked by letters “WCYZ”. However, the same was dismissed qua the suit property shown in red colour in the said site-plan. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. The short point of contention raised by learned counsel for the R.S.A. No. 1029 of 2007 (O&M) -2- appellant is that since the ventilator of the appellant is proved to have been opened towards the property shown in the red colour, therefore, the courts below should have decreed the suit in toto. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of any merit inasmuch as it is admitted by the contesting defendant-respondents in their written statement that ventilator of the appellant is there but the same was opened with their consent. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings that the appellant has failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit property shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. PW3/A. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not make out any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal by this Court. Dismissed in limine. ( Pritam Pal ) January 31, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'