RSA No.1034 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1034 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : March 09, 2010 Roop Singh and others ....Appellants versus Joginder Singh and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Gurjit Singh Kaura, Advocate, for the appellants. *** L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This is second appeal by plaintiffs who have been remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that the parties are co-sharers in joint possession of the suit land situated within Lal Lakeer of village Khai. The suit property has not been partitioned but the defendants wanted to alienate the same and also tried to change its nature without getting it partitioned. Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs illegally and forcibly and from changing nature of the suit land. RSA No.1034 of 2010 -2- Defendants No.1 and 2 contested the suit and inter alia pleaded that they are exclusive owners in possession of the suit property and plaintiffs are neither co-sharers nor in possession thereof. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Moga vide judgment and decree dated 19.03.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Moga vide judgment and decree dated 11.11.2009. Feeling still aggrieved, plaintiffs have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the land is within Lal Lakir of village Khai, no documentary evidence of title or possession thereof could be produced. However, this argument does not help the appellants because if the appellants failed to lead sufficient evidence, whatever be the reason, they cannot succeed in the suit. It was for the plaintiffs to lead cogent evidence to prove their case. The suit of the plaintiffs cannot be decreed on the ground that documentary evidence relating to the suit property is not available. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that defendants No.1 and 2 also failed to prove their ownership and possession over the suit land. However even if it be so, the suit of the plaintiffs cannot be decreed. To obtain decree, plaintiffs have to prove their own case. RSA No.1034 of 2010 -3- Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that parties are descendants of common ancestor Waryam Singh. However, merely on this basis, the parties cannot be held to be co-sharers or in joint possession of the suit property, because it is not proved that the suit land has devolved from the common ancestor Waryam Singh. Both the Courts below have appreciated the evidence led by the parties and given concurrent finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit land is owned and possessed jointly by both the parties. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. I find no merit in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 09, 2010 (L.N. MITTAL) vcgarg Judge