SURJIT SINGH Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant is directed against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below by invoking Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Both the Courts have concurrently found that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to adduce any evidence showing that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute. The plaintiff-appellant has placed reliance on Ex. P1 the site plan and Ex. P2 a compromise entered into between the parties in proceedings undertaken under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) MR . Bhag Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has argued that the nature of the land is abadi deh and no record is kept for proving the possession or the ownership. According to the learned counsel the statement made by the plaintiff-appellant along with the site plan Ex. P1 adequately establishes their case.

(3.) THE aforementioned paragraphs came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1996(2) RRR 61 (P&H) : (1995-3) PLR 613. The Division Bench was considering the question of abadi-deh/lal lakir for the purposes of measuring the sites of stone crushers. The argument was that the stone crushers could be situated at the specified distance, which might be measured from abadi deh. Rejecting that argument and referring to the afore-mentioned two paras from the Punjab Settlement Manual, the Division Bench held as under :-