RSA No.4114 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on April 24,2010. Kanwaljit Singh --Appellant vs. Sukhwant Kaur LR of Late Daljit Singh and others -- Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Manohar Dadwal,Advocate,for the appellant Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, The plaintiff is in second appeal in a suit for permanent injunction. His pleaded case is that defendant No.7 is the owner of the suit property bearing No.2, Lawrance Road, Amritsar. He had taken red portion shown in the site plan attached with the plaint on rent from defendant No.7 for running a wine shop w.e.f. 01.01.1997 @ Rs.700/- per month and had also taken a open space adjoining the suit property on rent on 01.6.1998 @ Rs.800/- per month from defendant No.7 and Mrs.Usha Juj, another co- sharer of the property in dispute. Defendant No.7, is alleged to have sold 130 square yards of land out of the property in question on 27.6.2007 to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 by way of registered sale deed, who after becoming co-sharers have started interfering in the possession of the RSA No.4114 of 2008 (O&M) 2 plaintiff illegally and forcibly, therefore, the suit was filed. Defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the appeal and was substituted by his legal representatives, namely defendant Nos. 2 to 6. Their pleaded case is that defendant No.7 with Mrs. Usha Juj were owners of the property, however, story coined by the plaintiff of being a tenant over the suit property was denied, rather it was alleged that they are in possession of the properties on the basis of registered sale deed. A separate written statement was filed by defendant No.7 who had taken a stand that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant and even at present, he is in possession. Plaintiff filed separate replications denying the averments made in the written statement and reiterated those made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties as many as 8 issues were framed. Both the parties led their respective evidence, but the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and both the Courts have held that he is not found to be in possession, therefore, not entitled to seek a decree of permanent injunction. In the present case, after appreciating the evidence available on file, both the Courts have found that the plaintiff has miserably failed to produce on record any cogent evidence which could persuade Court to believe that the plaintiff is a tenant over the suit property and is in possession. It has been found that the plaintiff has failed to produce on record the license to run the wine shop, books of accounts, income tax return or any documentary evidence to show that he has been paying the rent for being in possession of the suit property as a tenant. The entire emphasis was laid on the site plan Ex.PW1/1 which was tendered by the defendant in another Civil Suit titled as Jaswant Singh and others Vs. RSA No.4114 of 2008 (O&M) 3 Jaspal Singh and other in which wine shop has been shown in existence but still there is no evidence on record to show that the said wine shop was in possession of the plaintiff. Besides this, the plaintiff has placed on record various photo copies of telephopne and electricity bills which have been rightly ignored by the Courts below as these documents are inadmissible in evidence. Insofar as admission of defendant No.7 in the written statement about the tenancy of the plaintiff is concerned, it has been pointed out by the Courts below that defendant No.7 is the relation of the plaintiff and there is every possibility of full connivance between the two as defendant No. 7 did not enter the witness box being afraid of cross examination. Therefore, the averments made in the written statement would not suffice. As a matter of fact, both the Courts below did not find the plaintiff to be in possession over the suit property which has been admittedly sold by defendant No.7 to defendant Nos. 2 to 6 by a registered sale deed against a valuable consideration and as per recital therein, possession was delivered. Although, recital in the sale deed about possession is a week type of evidence, but it is for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading cogent and documentary evidence to prove his possession as a tenant as the same has been claimed for the last so many years much less since 1.1.1997. While making submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has basically repeated the arguments which had been raised before the Courts below and have been dealt with in extenso. He has failed to point out any specific illegality or error in the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, nor could he make out any substantial question of law as RSA No.4114 of 2008 (O&M) 4 required under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,CPC). In view of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere in the finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below and as such, the present appeal is dismissed in limine, though without any order as to costs. April 24,2010 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge