Mr. Shekher Dhawan, J.: - Present Regular Second Appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, whereby judgment and decree dated 6.11.2008 passed by Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Pehowa was set-aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.

3. Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that plaintiff - Narender Kumar had filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of arrears on the plea that he is owner of a steel khokha measuring 9 x 17 sq. feet. The said khokha alongwith the land underneath the khokha was taken on rent at the rate of Rs.300/- per month in the year 1998. Earlier the defendant used to make payment of rent, but thereafter stopped the payment of rent and the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs.10,800/- as arrears of rent. The plaintiff also took the plea that the defendant changed the shape of steel khokha by way of putting a steel shutter in place of a wooden door without the consent of the landlord. Oral request and issuance of legal notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 [for short, “the Act”] dated 31.7.2004 was to no effect and as such, suit before the Court of first instance.

4. The defendant contested the suit, inter alia, taking the plea that the khokha was constructed by him with his own expenses and he had purchased the material for the purpose. The house of Jagdev is on the back-side of the khokha. As per the defendant, the khokha in dispute is not on the land of the plaintiff and the site plan produced by the plaintiff is incorrect. In fact, the defendant is owner in possession of the said khokha. The electricity connection is also in the name of brother of the defendant, and prayed that the suit be dismissed.

5. On these pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance settled the issues. Parties led their respective evidence and after appreciating the entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, the Court of first instance decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he is owner of the steel khokha and is also entitled to Rs.10,800/- from the defendant and the plaintiff was also held entitled to possession of the same subject to deposit of court fee on the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment.

6. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Court of first Appeal and the first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Court of first instance and accepted the appeal thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. As such, the present Regular Second Appeal.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the following substantial question of law arise for determination by this Court :-

Whether the Court of first Appeal misread and mis-appreciated the evidence which resulted into erroneous findings?

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court of first instance had recorded findings on the basis of available evidence and the Court of first appeal reversed the said findings without any reason. The Court of first Appeal reversed the findings mainly on the ground that there was no lease deed nor any rent receipt was produced. The Court of first Appeal also returned findings that report of Local Commissioner, Ex. P3 could not be made the basis as no notice was served upon the parties and the visit of Local Commissioner was not in the presence of the defendant, which are factually incorrect. In fact, notice was issued to the defendant by the Local Commissioner and the defendant was actually present on the spot, but he refused to sign the presence memo. As per the revenue record, i.e. copy of Jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, Narender Kumar is the owner of the land as per copy of Khasra Girdawari