RSA No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) -1- ******* IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:27.09.2010. Dilbag Singh ...Appellant Versus Sukhwinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. P.S.Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which his suit for permanent injunction has been dismissed. The relevant finding of the learned First Appellate Court are as under: - “I have gone through the report made by Sh. K.S.Virk, Advocate, appointed Local Commissioner. Appellant-plaintiff Tari was not present at the spot and the Local Commissioner made report based on the statements of the persons present there. In my view, task of determining the person in possession under such circumstances cannot be given in the hands of the Local Commissioner. He could at the most report about the structure present at RSA No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ******* the spot as to whom those were belonging, within the help of photographs. There was heap of animal dung in the plot in dispute but the Local Commissioner could not make out as to whom it belonged. There was foundation/ boundary wall of the plot on two sides as per photographs available on record of the trial Court. However, the same have not been proved in the evidence of the concerned party. I arrive at a conclusion that the report of Local Commissioner which is partly in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendant does not inspire confidence. Plaintiff was bound to prove his possession as well as the mode in which she got possession of the plot in order to prove her right of permanent injunction with regard to her forcible dispossession. Learned lower court has discussed that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence regarding the alleged Will in favour of Tari, the deceased plaintiff. Property in dispute is within the boundary of the village and does not bear any khasra number. However, the revenue record of agricultural land which the deceased plaintiff would have acquired by virtue of Will from Labh Singh has also not brought in evidence. Although the question of title was not to be decided in this case, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was based on the pleadings of the deceased plaintiff and she was bound to prove the necessary circumstances which would entitle her to RSA No.3553 of 2009 (O&M) -3- ******* protect her possession over the disputed plot as alleged by her. In the absence of such proof the plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the plot in dispute.” As a matter of fact, no question of law much-less substantial has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant to compel this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below by appreciation of evidence, therefore, I do no find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. September 27, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE