Regular Second Appeal No.229 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.229 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 5 th APRIL, 2011 Khema Ram & another .... Appellants Versus Kabir Dass .... Respondent CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. S. S. Walia, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Defendants Khema Ram and his Son Balbir have filed the instant second appeal, having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below. Respondent-plaintiff Kabir Dass filed suit against appellants for permanent injunction alleging that plaintiff is owner in possession of two plots in which he has constructed room and huts and is residing there with his family and also doing business. Defendants having no right, title or interest in the suit property threatened to dispossess the plaintiff therefrom forcibly and illegally, necessitating the filing of the instant suit for permanent injunction against the said threatened action of defendants. Defendants broadly denied the plaint allegations. The defendants alleged that they have their pucca house and some portion of the plot is lying vacant towards Eastern side and another plot is lying in front of their house/room. Defendants are in possession of the said plots since the year 1950 as licensees under the Municipal Committee. Various other pleas were also raised. Regular Second Appeal No.229 of 2010 -2- Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 29.10.2007 decreed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 06.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. The plaintiff has led plethora of documentary evidence in addition to oral evidence whereas the defendants simply stepped into witness box themselves and have not led any other oral or documentary evidence. Both the courts below have held concurrently on analysis of the evidence led by the parties that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. On the other hand, defendants have not led any documentary evidence to depict that they are in possession of the suit property either as licensees under the Municipal Committee as claimed by them or otherwise. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of the plaintiff is supported by cogent evidence led by the plaintiff and is based on sound reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misleading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Consequently the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal nor it gives rise to any question of law, much less substantial question of law, for adjudication in this second appeal. The appeal is thus found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 5th April, 2011 'raj'