Balbir Singh v. Sukha Singh And ANR

S. No.104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.4440 of 2019 (O&M) Date of Decision:17.01.2025 Balbir Singh .....Appellant Vs.

Sukha Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the appellant.

**** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral) Plainff of the suit is in this Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below inasmuch as suit filed by him seeking a decree of permanent injuncon regarding suit property was dismissed by the trial Court on 12.07.2018 and appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 12.02.2019.

2.

In order to avoid confusion, the pares shall be referred as per their status before the trial Court.

3.

Plainff claimed to be owner in possession of the suit property. According to him, earlier he was owner of a plot which he gave to defendant No.2 in exchange for the suit property and then raised construcon of a house on the suit property about 10 years back. It was further claimed that plainff and defendant No.2 executed an affidavit dated 23.08.2013 regarding exchange made in the year 1982. Defendant No.1 in his wri4en statement denied the claim. According to him, plainff is son of Piara Singh whereas defendant No.1 is son of Shingara Singh. Dhan Kaur was earlier married to Piara Singh and out of that wedlock, plainff was born. A6er the death of Piara Singh, Dhan Kaur remarried Shingara Singh and from that wedlock, defendant No.1 was born. It was pleaded further that in an agreement dated 08.04.1998, wri4en in the Gram Panchayat, between plainff and Shingara Singh, land measuring 04 marla of the house and 02 marla was given to plainff whereas 02 marla was given to RENU 2025.01.17 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

RSA No.4440 of 2019 (O&M) -2Shingara Singh on which Shingara Singh and his son Mukhar Singh @ Sukha Singh i.e. defendant No.1 raised construcon of the house and got an electricity meter installed. Any concern of defendant No.2 with the suit property is denied. 4.

Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plainff had failed to prove either his tle or possession over the suit property and so dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court affirmed the finding.

5.

Although learned counsel for the appellant contended that evidence on file has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below, but could not convince this Court as to which part of evidence was not considered by them. Perusal of the file reveals that only the oral evidence was produced by the plainff apart from certain photographs which were not sufficient to prove his tle or possession. Learned Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that site plan or the photographs produced on file by the plainff could not be taken as proof of ownership of the plainff or possession over the suit property.

6.

A6er appraising the judgments of the Courts below, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact, as the same are based upon proper appreciaon of evidence on record. 7.

As such, holding present appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed.

January 17, 2025 ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) renu JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2025.01.17 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh