RSA No.486 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.486 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 25.01.2011 Surinder Kumar .. Petitioner Versus Shelly Aggarwal .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA. Present:- Mr.P.S. Khurana, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * * SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for possession basing his claim on the sale deed dated 14.02.1994 executed by Suraj Mani through his Attorney Achit Mani in favour of the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that after the execution of the sale deed in his favour, he had become owner-in- possession of the property in dispute. Defendant had no right, title or interest in the suit property and about a month back had illegally occupied the suit property in the absence of the plaintiff. Hence, suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendant, in his written statement averred that the suit property was not owned by Suraj Mani. The defendant was in possession of the suit land as owner. The defendant had inherited the suit property from his father. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- RSA No.486 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: “(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property ? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD (iii) Whether site plan attached by the plaintiff is incorrect ? OPD (iv) Whether suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD (v) Relief.” The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within two months. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The plaintiff had filed the suit for possession alleging that he had become owner of the suit property on the basis of sale deed (Ex.P-1) dated 14.02.1994 executed by Suraj Mani through his Attorney Achit Mani in his favour. In order to prove the due executed of the sale deed in his favour, plaintiff examined Ashwani Kumar, attesting witness to the sale deed. Sudarshan Kumar, Attorney of the plaintiff, also appeared in the witness-box on behalf of the plaintiff. The said witness is also an attesting witness to the sale deed. The plaintiff also examined Sukhraj Singh Bedi, who had scribed the sale deed. The said witnesses proved the due execution of the sale deed executed by Achit Mani on the basis of Power of Attorney executed by Suraj Mani in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, RSA No.486 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: the plaintiff had been successful in proving the due execution of the sale deed in his favour. In order to establish that the suit property was owned by Suraj Mani, the plaintiff examined Bhajan Ram (PW-4) who brought the summoned record qua property in question and deposed that as per their record, the suit property stood in the name of Suraj Mani. He also proved the copies of the assessment registers. The defendant, on the other hand, failed to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff. The defendant failed to establish that the suit property was his ancestral property. The defendant placed reliance on electricity bill to establish that he was in possession of the suit land since long but the defendant failed to connect the said bills with the property in dispute. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record have given a finding of fact that the suit property was owned by the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff was entitled to get the possession of the suit property. No substantial question of law arises in this case. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. January 25, 2011 (SABINA) sukhpreet JUDGE