have raised constructions and are using the construction FGHI for the last more than thirty years. A perusal of the evidence on record discloses that the entire property was owned by Shanti Saroop. He sold it in parts to the appellant and the respondents. The appellant alleges that the land FGHI was left as a shamlat chowk. The onus, therefore, to establish that the land FGHI was left as shamlat chowk lay upon the appellant. The only evidence produced to discharge this onus is a recital in the appellant's sale deed that the land FGHI is a shamlat chowk. As held by the courts below, the recital in the sale deed binds parties thereto and does not bind the respondents who are strangers to this sale deed. The respondent has not produced any other evidence in support of his case. The argument addressed by the counsel for the appelant that the respondents have failed to prove their sale deed is irrelevant as the appellant has failed to establish his submission that the land FGHI is a shamlat chowk. In a civil suit onus shifts from one side to the other only after the party required to establish a fact, succeeds in producing evidence to establish the fact. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not call for interference. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed.
