The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of documentary evidence, particularly sale deeds, and the significance of subsequent events, such as partition proceedings, in determining ownership rights.

Amit Rawal, J.

The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgment and decree rendered by the lower appellate court whereby the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2007 decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been set aside.

2. Mr. Vijay Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that Kartar Singh was owner of the land measuring 144K-8M. He died in the year 1980. He was survived by his two sons i.e. Gurmit Singh and Hari Singh and two daughters Hamir Kaur and Charan Kaur. Charan Kaur sold away her share in favour of Gurmit Singh in the essence Gurmit Singh became owner of ½ share of the entire property. Gurmit Singh defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 23.5.2002 Ex.P22 sold 27K-6M of land to Dharam Pal including 1/3rd share in the tubewell electric connection. Mr. Vijay Sharma submits that it is so reflected in the sale deed. Dharam Pal vide sale deed dated 6.11.2003 Ex.P5 sold the same piece of land along with 1/3rd share in the tubewell connection to the plaintiff. Gurmit Singh himself sold 16K of land to the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 24.4.2003 Ex.P4 which also contains a recital with regard to the share of the tubewell connection. Even Hamir Kaur the other sister executed a lease deed dated 2.6.2004 in favour of the appellant Ex.P1 in the essence the appellant had been put into possession having the tubewell electric connection. The cause of action to file the suit arose in the year 2002 when defendant No.1 wanted to shift the tubewell electric connection to other piece of land as the same is situated in Khasra No.52/8. The trial court after examination of the jamabandi for the year 1998-99 Khasra Girdawari Ex.P7 as well as the electricity bills Ex.P9 to Ex.P21, granted declaration and consequential injunction. However, the lower appellate court being the last court of fact and law did not discharge the obligation and misinterpreted and misread the regulation of Punjab Electricity Board in the essence read regulation No.38 but did not read material regulation particularly regulation 41 which deals with the transfer of the tubewell electric connection in case of such exigencies and eventuality, thus has been a gross misreading and misconstruing of the documentary evidence and urges this Court to formulate the following questions of law :

(i) Whether the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 passed by 1st appellate court is perverse and illegal?

(ii) Whether the non-performance of formalities for change of name of electric connection would mean that plaintiff has not acquired share/interest in the electric connection/tubewell?

3. Mr. Virk learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the appellant has failed to prove the aforementioned sale deeds. The sale deed Ex.P22 was tendered in evidence which was seriously objected to, and the plaintiff failed to discharge onus and, therefore, the question of selling tubewell connection in the sale deed has seriously been disputed. Learned appellate court examined the aforementioned pleadings as well as regulations in correct perspective and dismissed the suit. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree in the essence defendant No.1 had never sold the land to Dharam Pal including the electric connection.

4. Mr. Vijay Sharma submits that the first appeal before the lower appellate court was preferred by Hamir Kaur defendant No.2 who had never executed the sale deed but have only executed the lease deed Ex.P1. He further submits that the attesting witnesses to the lease deed i.e. Lambardar and Member Panchayat have been examined, they stated that their signatures appear on the lease deed. During the course of arguments, he has also shown to this Court latest revenue record i.e. jamabandi for the year 2008-09 to show that there was partition proceedings and after mutation, tubewell connection situated in Khasra No.52/8 had been transferred in the name of the plaintiff as a consequence to