Regular Second Appeal No. 3747 OF 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3747 of 2005. (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.5.2009 *** Prakash Chand .. Appellant VS. Kulwant Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate. for the appellant. Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate For the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. In the instant appeal, challenge has been laid by the defendant- appellant to the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2005 passed by the learned first appellate Court below. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from illegally and forcibly interfering in his peaceful possession over the house as described in the plaint by observing that the plaintiff not only failed to prove the identity of the suit property but also its ancestral nature. The learned first appellate Court below on an appeal preferred by the plaintiff, allowed the same and restrained the appellant-defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no question of law warranting admission of instant appeal would arise for consideration. Both the parties are related to Regular Second Appeal No. 3747 OF 2005 2 each other. The case of the plaintiff was that he is in possession of the house in dispute being his ancestral property while the defendant claimed his ownership on the property in dispute by virtue of document dated 12.6.1998. It emerges out from the records that both the parties failed to cogently prove their title over the suit property. The document dated 12.6.1998, on the basis of which the defendant claimed his ownership of the suit property was found not only an un-registered one but also not sufficiently stamped and thus it was excluded from the zone of consideration. On the other hand, the ocular version of the plaintiff and his witness, when considered in the light of description of the property given by the defendant in his written statement, was found sufficient to prove the identity of the suit property. The admission of the defendant and his witness coupled with the evidence adduced by the plaintiff established his physical possession over the property in dispute and hence it was rightly held by the first appellate Court below that defendant is not having a better title and being out of possession, he cannot dispossess the plaintiff, who is in physical possession, from the suit property otherwise in due course of law. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the findings returned by the first appellate Court below are either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, there is no question of law raised in this appeal which may warrant its admission in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code. The appeal is wholly without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25,2009 Jiten