The courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the appellant is neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. It has been specifically held that the appellant has failed to place on record any demarcation report or site plan to prove that the property owned by respondent no.2 and the property claimed by the appellant are different. As regards the averments in Ex.P-13, the courts below have rejected the assertion that it contains an admission that the two properties bear different municipal numbers by holding that no such plea was raised and even otherwise, is insufficient to hold in favour of the appellant in view of the absence of any municipal record. I find no reason, whether in law or in fact to hold that the findings recorded by the courts below are incorrect. As is apparent from the narrative of facts, Tara Singh, father of the appellant and Darshan Singh, the vendor of respondent no.1 went through a protracted litigation including objections manipulated by the appellant, his brother and by Tara Singh. After Tara Singh was dispossessed, he suffered a collusive decree in favour of his son, Boota Singh the appellant who started this fresh round of litigation. The courts below have rightly held that the suit land belongs to respondent no.1 and in the absence of any evidence to establish his ownership, the appellant has no right, title or interest in the suit property. It would also be necessary to mention here that the collusive decree dated 13.12.1996 was suffered by Tara Singh after the suit had been decreed in
