IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3597 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 Inder Singh ...Appellant. Versus Dalip Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by defendant No.1 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.9.2008 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 2.8.2006 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for possession, was decreed. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff was owner of the land measuring 10 Bighas 5 Biswas comprising in khasra Nos. 1182 (6-0), 1194 (4-5), situated within the area of village Katron, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur as per jamabandi for the year 1996-97. It was pleaded that defendants No.1 and 2 were owners of khasra No. 1181 adjoining the suit land. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.3 from encroaching any part of his land and during the pendency of the suit, defendant No.3 encroached upon 1 biswas 4 biswansis out of R.S.A. No. 3597 of 2008 -2- khasra No.1182 belonging to the plaintiff and amalgamated the same in khasra No. 1181, owned by defendants No.1 and 2, by raising construction of a poultry farm illegally. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff filed an application on 24.5.2002 for demarcation of khasra No.1182 and defendant No.3 was found in illegal possession of 1 biswa 4 biswansis which was amalgamated in khasra No. 1181. The plaintiff requested the defendants to hand over the possession of the same but they refused to do so and that gave rise to the filing of the suit. To controvert the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. They denied the fact that the plaintiff was owner of khasra No. 1182 and 1194 for want of knowledge, however, they claimed to be the owners of khasra No. 1180. It was further pleaded that the poultry farm was constructed long back and no part of the suit land was in the illegal possession of the defendants. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 3. Relief.” On appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, the trial court decided issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff holding him entitled to possession of land measuring 1 R.S.A. No. 3597 of 2008 -3- biswas 4 biswansis, having been illegally encroached upon by the defendants out of khasra No.1182 and amalgamated in their own khasra No.1181. Issues No.2 and 3 were decided against the defendants holding that the plaintiff had locus standi and cause of action to file the suit for possession. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff by directing the defendants to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff within a period of three months from the said date. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 9.9.2008 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below but the same was not possible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He could not point out any illegality or perversity in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The courts below have concurrently held that the defendants were in unauthorized possession of the suit land and were, therefore, liable to hand over the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. While recording the aforesaid finding, the courts below have relied upon the report of the local commissioner, Ex.P1. R.S.A. No. 3597 of 2008 -4- No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. November 11, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE