Gurmail Singh vs Balbir Singh

Swatanter Kumar, J.—C.M. No. 317-C of 1998 is allowed subject to just exceptions. The deficiency of Rs. 1.25 paise has already been made up. Consequently, the delay in making up the deficiency is condoned. C.M. Stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 318-C of 1998 is allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. No. 319 of 1998 does not survive in view of the order passed in the main appeal.

R.S.A. No. 150 of 1998.

Heard. Both the Courts below have given a concurrent finding of fact that Plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove possession on the property in dispute or their any interest in the property. In fact the Courts below have relied upon the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 9022 of 1994, copy of which was exhibited as Ex.P.4, which was subsequently withdrawn. The learned first Appellate Court has categorically come to the conclusion that a false and frivolous suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs and also that the present Respondents were in possession of the property in dispute and were so described in the relevant revenue records. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajender Kumar Vs. Jamna Das Kotewala, , this Court is not to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts, where the evidence is neither perverse nor the conclusions are violative of basic principles of law.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants stressed her submissions that mark PX is a copy of Calendra which was dated 17.5.1994. In this Calendra the possession of the present-Appellants was confirmed. She further submits that the learned courts below have not considered the effect of this document on the matters in issue. This submission is not well founded. Primarily the document itself has not been exhibited and it is a marked document. A document which is not exhibited in evidence cannot be construed and considered by the Courts adverse to the interests of either of them. Further more, it is even conceded before me that the present Appellant has no interest in the property. The mere possessory rights unfounded on any legal right, cannot be permitted to stand in a relief of injunction against the true owner. In this regard reference can be made to K.A. Mohammed Ali Vs. C.N. Prasannan, . This appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.