RSA No.1299 of 2009 [1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Regular Second Appeal No.1299 of 2009 (O&M)
Decided on : March 24, 2009
Nanak
… Appellant
VERSUS
Smt.Usha Kumari and another
… Respondents
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Karan Singh,
Advocate for the petitioner.
A.N.JINDAL, J.-
The plaintiff – appellant has raised the dispute regarding 10
Kanal 6 Marlas of land. It has been submitted that the land belongs to
Mangti and others, and subsequently purchased by defendant –
respondent No.1 Usha Kumari by virtue of registered sale-deed dated
2.4.1999. Now, the appellant is vehemently urging that he is in
possession of the disputed land in the capacity as `tenant’, but the stand
of respondent No.1 is that the appellant had delivered the possession
after receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- and in this regard an affidavit
(Ex.D1) was also furnished by him. The execution of the affidavit
(Ex.D1) stands duly proved by examining Bishna Ram (DW3) and Rulia
Ram Lambardar (DW4). The appellant has also not denied his thumb
RSA No.1299 of 2009 [2 ]
impression on the affidavit (Ex.D1). Had the document been not
genuine, then the appellant could also examine the finger print expert,
but he did not choose to do so. Thus, the mode of proof as adopted by
the defendant cannot be said to be inappropriate. The appellant cannot
wriggle out of the execution of the affidavit (Ex.D1) and payment of
Rs.10,000/-, thereunder.
Secondly, the plaintiff – appellant had earlier also filed a
suit (Ex.D4) for declaration and permanent injunction against the
previous owners i.e. Mangti, etc, which was eventually dismissed in
default on 24.3.2001. All this goes to show that the plaintiff – appellant
had certainly surrendered the possession on receipt of Rs.10,000/-, in
token of which he had also executed the affidavit (Ex.D1).
That apart, the instant appeal is also delayed by 90 days, for
which no satisfactory explanation has been given.
Resultantly, the application for condonation of delay is
declined. Consequently, the appeal also fails.
March 24, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE