RSA No. 1020 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1020 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : 21-01-2009 Santokh Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Dasonda Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J C.M. No. 3067-C of 2008 For the reasons mentioned in the appeal, delay of 91 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. RSA No. 1020 of 2008 This appeal is directed against the judgements of the learned Trial Court dated 12.1.2007 and First Appellate Court dated 31.5.2007. The plaintiff-appellant Santokh Singh claims that he is owner in possession of the plot measuring 8 Marlas which is adequately described in the plaint. It is pleaded that this plot was purchased by him on 4.3.2003 and the respondent purchased the adjoining plot towards the opposite side of the street. The suit was filed to restrain the respondent from interfering in the possession of the appellant by pleading that he has no right, interest or title in the area shown as 'Z' and marked from point A to B and also shown in green colour. The respondent pleaded that he is residing in his own property and it is the appellant-plaintiff who is trying to usurp the street which is common and the area which is claimed by the appellant to RSA No. 1020 of 2008 (O&M) 2 be his is in fact a street. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? 4. Relief. and came to the conclusion that the appellant was not entitled to the relief of injunction as he could not establish that it was his property which was being encroached upon by the respondent. In appeal, learned First Appellate Court while affirming the findings of the Trial Court went on to hold that the appellant himself has established a big iron gate at point A and Local Commissioner who was appointed had reported that the disputed area is a street. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that this finding is perverse. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is without any merit. The appellant has miserably failed to show that the disputed area from point A to B belongs to him or in his possession. The sale deed on which he has relied is ambiguous which only mentions the properties which are existing and belonging to other neighbours but the dimensions are not specific. The fact that the appellant has affixed a big iron gate at point A whereas a small gate is affixed by the respondent shows that it is a common intended distinction between the two properties of the RSA No. 1020 of 2008 (O&M) 3 appellant and the respondent. In any eventuality, these are findings of facts which cannot be interfered with in a Regular Second Appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. January 21 , 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge