Judgment:
Rs.No.2938 of 2012 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.2938 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.7.2014 Hari Singh .Appellant v.
Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others .Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Gagandeep Singh Sirphikhi, Advocate for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The plaintiff is before this court against the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for declaration to the effect that he and respondent No.4-Ajit Singh are owners to the extent of ½ share each of electric connection installed in khaSr.No.141//17/2, situated in village Ramdass, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar, was dismissed.
Prayer was also made for permanent injunction restraining the officials of erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (for short, 'the Board') from shifting the tubewell connection bearing No.S-1614 to any other portion of land, which was also declined.
As per the pleadings noticed in the judgment of the trial court, Ajit Singh had mortgaged 24 kanals and 16 marlas of land bearing khaSr.Nos.141//22/4, 23, 24, 18/1, 18/2 vide mortgage deed dated 15.1.1983 for a sum of ` 35,000/- with possession to the plaintiff-appellant for a period of 8 yeaRs.The tubewell connection was installed in khaSr.No.141//17/2, which was not the portion of land mortgaged with possession by Ajit Singh with the plaintiff-appellant.
The tubewell connection was installed after respondent No.4-Ajit Singh executed an agreement on 23.12.1985 with the erstwhile Board.
The learned lower appellate court has specifically recorded Kumar Manoj 2014.07.04 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Rs.No.2938 of 2012 [2].that the mortgaged land had already been got redeemed by Ajit Singh after paying the amount to the plaintiff-appellant.
It was admitted by the plaintiff- appellant in his cross-examination that electric connection was installed in the name of Ajit Singh and further that he was not owner of the land in which electric connection was installed.
On the basis of the material produced on record by the parties and specifically the admissions made by the plaintiff-appellant in his cross-examination, it is clear that electric connection got installed by respondent No.4-Ajit Singh was not in the portion of land mortgaged with possession to the plaintiff-appellant.
In my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the courts below in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant seeking share in the tubewell connection.
No substantial question of law arises as the findings recorded by the courts below are pure and simple findings of fact.
Dismissed.
Consequently, the accompanying applications are also dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 1.7.2014 mk Kumar Manoj 2014.07.04 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document