RSA No.2791 of 2007(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2791 of 2007(O&M) Date of decision: 17.4.2009 Hardit Singh ......Appellant Versus Hakam Rai ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.7740-C of 2007 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 117 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No.2791 of 2007 This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent for possession of the suit property was decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff- respondent was owner in possession of the suit property which he had purchased vide sale deed dated 27.1.1971. It was the further case of the plaintiff-respondent that defendant had no right or concern with the suit property but he intended to forcibly occupy the same. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in his possession over the suit property in which ad interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff, which was later on RSA No.2791 of 2007(O&M) 2 confirmed on 23.10.1993 whereby defendant was permanently restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. It was further averred that defendant occupied the suit land on 1.12.1994 forcibly, illegally and in violation of the order dated 23.10.1993 during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff withdrew that suit on 7.2.1996 so that he could file a suit for possession against the defendant. Since the defendant forcibly occupied the suit property without any right or authority, therefore, the plaintiff had every right to get back the suit property. Hence, the suit seeking possession of the suit property from the defendant. The defendant appeared on notice and contested the suit raising certain preliminary objections. On merits, the defendant denied that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property. It was claimed by the defendant that the plaintiff had described the suit property wrongly and in fact, the defendant was owner in possession of the suit property which was purchased by him from Gurmeet Kaur vide sale deed dated 16.7.1972. Other averments in the suit were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. After appreciating evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant and consequent thereupon decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Appeal filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.9.2006. While dismissing the appeal, the Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court observing that the suit property which was part of building/plot No.21 was in the ownership of Hakam Rai, who had purchased the same from Lekj Raj vide registered sale deed Ex.P-2. RSA No.2791 of 2007(O&M) 3 Still not satisfied, the defendant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the suit property. Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any perversity in the findings of the Courts below. I find no merit in the appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. April 17, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.2791 of 2007(O&M) 4