RSA No.3693 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3693 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 9, 2011 Krishan .....Appellant v. Gram Panchayat, Lajwana Kalan and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10461-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 43 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.10462-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3693 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Jind, vide which suit filed by him was dismissed with cost. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by both RSA No.3693 of 2011(O&M) -2- the learned Courts below. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant-plaintiff is that he is owner in possession of a piece of land, which is lying vacant adjacent to his house, which was purchased by him by virtue of a writing Ex.PW3/A from the previous owner and that respondent-Gram Panchayat is having no right to interfere in his possession. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that he had been continuing in possession of the same and that even respondent-Gram Panchayat has failed to prove ownership over the vacant site in dispute. It is also contended that he has been non-suited by both the courts below only on the ground that Ex.PW3/A is not a registered document. However, admittedly present appellant-plaintiff has purchased the house in which he is residing vide sale deed Ex.PW2/3 and the disputed piece of land is situated on the southern side of said house. It has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that perusal of sale deed Ex.PW2/3 shows that there exists a street on the southern side and that there is no vacant land. Hence, when there was only a street and no vacant land even as per sale deed Ex.PW2/3, it cannot be said that either present appellant-plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest was having any right over the said vacant land. Plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. It was for him to prove ownership of the land in dispute in order to succeed in his case, which he has failed to prove. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned courts RSA No.3693 of 2011(O&M) -3- below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 9.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge