R.S.A NO. 4301 OF 2008 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO. 4301 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 10.09.2009 Saroj Bala ...Appellant versus Mahavir Jain Sangh and ors. ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property, was dismissed. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property on 07.04.2004 from none else but her husband. The present suit for declaration was filed soon after the purchase on 28.04.2005. It is the stand of the defendants that the property was owned by one Rattan Lal Mehta. He died on 17.10.1995 in Kenya. He has executed a Will dated 20.09.1995 in favour of his R.S.A NO. 4301 OF 2008 2- wife Santosh Kumari. Then Santosh Kumari executed a Power of Attorney dated 25.08.2003 in favour of her nephew Darshan Lal Mehta who in turn executed General Power of Attorney dated 22.03.2004 in favour of S.S.Jain Sabha and thus, the defendants is in possession on the basis of an act of attorney of Rattan Lal Mehta. Both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff has failed to prove the title of her vendor S.K.Mehta and thus, is not entitled to decree for injunction sought for. Along with the present appeal, an application has been filed by the plaintiff under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing Will dated 20.09.1995 executed by Rattan Lal Mehta, as additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in the present appeal. The plaintiff has claimed injunction as owner. However, the ownership of her vendor has not been proved. The same is sought to be proved by leading additional evidence in second appeal. The relevant evidence was not produced before the trial Court. The lacuna in evidence cannot be permitted to be filled up much less at this stage of second appeal. Consequently, I do not find any ground to entertain the application for permission to lead additional evidence. The same is accordingly dismissed. R.S.A NO. 4301 OF 2008 3- The defendants have proved that the possession was delivered to the defendants by the attorney of Santosh Kumari w/o Rattan Lal Mehta. Though the plaintiff described the property as a house but it was found to be a vacant plot, over which boundary wall has been constructed. The stand of the defendants that they are in possession was found to be correct on the basis of statements of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below in respect of possession, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in the second appeal. Dismissed. September 10, 2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) shalini JUDGE