RSA No.3899 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3899 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:04.10.2010. Birvati ...Appellant Versus Jagdish and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. Plaintiff No.1 is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs has been dismissed as being not maintainable. The finding recorded by the learned First Appellate Court in this regard is as under: - “In the present case, it will be seen that after execution and registration of release deed Ex.DW1/B a mutation bearing No.313 Ex.P4 was also sanctioned on 27.07.2004 in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit land mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint. Defendant Jagdish by examining himself as DW3 and Yad Ram as DW2 has led definite evidence to prove his possession over the suit land. Even the plaintiff No.1 Smt. Birvati PW1 during her cross-examination has categorically admitted it correct that the RSA No.3899 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** defendant has constructed a well on the suit land and has also obtained an electricity connection thereon. Thus, it would be evident that none of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property at the time of the filing of the suit. In that view of the matter, plaintiffs could seek for further relief other than a decree for mere declaration of title and as such, the present suit for mere declaration and permanent injunction without seeking the relief of possession is held to be not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in the proviso appended to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. I am fortified in my said view by the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehar Chand Das Vs. Lal Babu Siddique and others 2007(2) RCR 628 as well as by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Saudagar Singh Vs. Harnam Kaur 1987 PLJ 248.” Unfortunately, the appellant has not even framed any question of law much-less substantial in order to challenge the aforesaid finding whereby the suit has been held to be not maintainable nor learned counsel for the appellant could point out any error in the aforesaid finding. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. October 04, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE