BAGICHA SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has arisen out of a suit filed by the respondent for possession of the vacant site in dispute measuring 4 marlas on the basis of the title. The said site was stated to have been purchased from Hasso Teli by her father-in-law from whom it devolved on her. It was further alleged that the defendants illegally took possession of it by demolishing the southern wall in her absence when she was residing at Guru Har Sahai. The defendants contested the suit and claimed themselves to be the owners of the said site having purchased it from the Government and in the alternative set up a prescriptive title by way of adverse possession. The trial Court upheld the title of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. Its finding having been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, the defendants have come up in this second appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the concurrent finding of the two Courts below on the ground that there is no evidence worth reliance on the record to connect the sale-deed Exhibit P-2 with the site in dispute. The only evidence available on the record in this respect is the statement of the respondent and the site plan, Exhibit P-1 prepared by D.W. 3, Des Raj. So far as the statement of the respondent is concerned, the boundaries stated by her, as observed even by the lower Appellate Court, do not tally with the boundaries of the sale deed Exhibit P-1. However, the Courts below relying on Exhibit P-1 held that the sale-deed, Exhibit P-2, relates to the site in dispute. The person who prepared the site plan, Exhibit P-1 stated in cross-examination that he had entered the boundaries in the plan on making enquiries at the spot. However, it was not disclosed from whom the enquiries were made. The plan therefore, has absolutely no evidentiary value so far as the boundaries of the site in dispute are concerned. Thus there was no evidence on the record which could connect the site in dispute with the sale deed, Exhibit P-2 and the finding of the Courts below is based on mere conjectures and surmises. Such a finding obviously would not be binding in second appeal and is hereby reversed.

(3.) Before closing the judgment I may also dispose of the application filed by the appellants under Order 41, Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, for the production of additional evidence. The learned counsel has, however, failed to show as to how the documents sought to be produced relate to the land in dispute. The application is consequently dismissed.