IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No. 488 of 2009
Date of decision: 28.1.2009
Bhagwan Dass ... Appellant.
Versus
Sultan and others ... Respondents
Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate,
for the appellant.
...
ARVIND KUMAR, J:
Appellant before this Court was the plaintiff who has
been non-suited by the Courts below in a suit for possession.
The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint, was that
he had purchased a plot comprised in Killa No. 68/9/2 measuring 200 sq.
yards vide registered sale-deed dated 24.1.1994 for a consideration of
Rs.40,000/-. It was alleged that the defendants have encroached upon his
land to the extent of 20 ft. towards North, marked as ABCD in the site plan.
Defendant No. 6 has also sold some land to defendant No.4 on the western
side of the plaintiff but he is also trying to occupy his land illegally. Thus,
the plaintiff sought restoration of possession of the encroached portion. In
the written statement by defendants, the allegations were denied with the
plea that the site plan is showing wrong boundaries. No land has been
encroached; rather the suit has been filed with an intention to encroach upon
the land of sons of defendant No.4 and putting hurdle in street in order to
block the path of sons of defendant No.4.
Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence adduced by
the parties, have dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It has been held that the
site plan, Ex.P-2, tendered by the plaintiff has not been proved properly
since no draftsman has been examined. The plaintiff who admittedly had
purchased plot measuring 200 sq. yards from defendant No.5, has utterly
failed to prove that area measuring 20 ft. towards North had been
encroached upon by the defendants; rather in his cross-examination he has
admitted that at the time when he constructed his house, he got demarcated
RSA No. 488 of 2009 -2-
the plot from Patwari but he did not even produced that report. In regard to
the stress laid by the plaintiff on the statement of DW-1, Nand Kishore,
who admitted in his cross-examination that he had encroached upon an area
of 20/18½ ft. towards western-southern portion of plot, it has been held by
the Courts below that he made reference to said encroachment relating to
the land of the Panchayat of which he was in possession since 1965.
Plaintiff cannot derive any benefit out of the shortcomings of the case of
defendants since as per settled law he has to stand on his own legs and to
prove his case by leading cogent evidence. It has also been found by the
Courts below that suit of the plaintiff is vague as he has not mentioned as to
when possession of the disputed area was taken over by the defendants and
mere proving of title will not dispense with the requirement of proving as to
when and how much area was encroached by the defendants. Nothing has
been shown that the findings of fact so recorded by the Courts below suffer
from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law,
muchless substantial, arises in the present appeal.
Consequently, the appeal being without any merit is hereby
dismissed.
January 28, 2009 ( ARVIND KUMAR) JS JUDGE