RSA-212-2022 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 124 RSA-212-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.03.2025 BAGICHA SINGH …..Appellant Vs DILBAGH SINGH …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Mahar Singh Dhami, Advocate for the appellant. ****** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Defendant of the case is before this Court against concurrent findings of the Courts below. Suit for possession regarding property in dispute measuring 12 marla shown by le'ers ABCD in the site plan a'ached and as per details given in headnote of the plaint, filed by the plain)ff-Dilbagh Singh (respondent herein) was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 09.09.2017. Appeal filed by the defendant (appellant herein) was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 04.08.2021. 2. Assailing the aforesaid concurrent findings, it is contended by learned counsel that Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspec)ve. 3. Having considered submission of learned counsel for the appellant and a5er going through paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the conten)on. 4. Suit of the plain)ff-respondent for seeking possession of the suit property is based upon )tle, inasmuch as he had purchased the suit property vide conveyance deed dated 24.03.1973 (Ex.P-1). It was found by the Courts below that specific boundaries along with measurements were duly men)oned in the said conveyance deed. Defendant had opposed the claim on the ground that suit property had been given to him in a family par))on. However, it was Page 1 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.26 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-212-2022 (O&M) found by the Courts below that no such family par))on, as alleged by the defendant-appellant was produced or proved on file. Even, the witness examined by the defendant namely DW-2 Harpinder Singh admi'ed that suit property was purchased by the plain)ff. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when plain)ff-respondent is proved to be )tle-holder of the suit property based upon conveyance deed dated 24.03.1973 (Ex.P-1) in his favour, and defendant-appellant failed to prove the stand put forth by him, this Court does not find any ground to disturb the well-reasoned concurrent findings of the facts as recorded by the Courts below, which are found to be based upon proper apprecia)on of evidence. 6. In the absence of illegality or perversity in the aforesaid concurrent findings, no interference is called for. Dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 25.03.2025 JUDGE Pry Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No Page 2 of 2 Pages PRIYANKA 2025.03.26 17:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document