RSA No.168 of 1988 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.168 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Shree Chand and another ............Appellants Versus Hari Singh and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Mani Ram, Advocate for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs (herein appellants) against the judgment and decree dated 18.11.1986 passed by learned trial Court/Senior Sub Judge, Bhiwani as well as judgment and decree dated 26.10.1987 passed by learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge-II, Bhiwani. Both the Courts below have partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction over the land measuring 3 bighas 1 biswa except the portion shown as AXYZ in the site plan Ex.D1, restraining the RSA No.168 of 1988 (O&M) -2- defendants from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs. 2. Feeling aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit for the property shown as AXYZ in the site plan Ex.D1, plaintiffs have preferred first appeal, which was also dismissed by learned first Appellate Court. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs could not prove their possession over the portion of property shown as AXYZ in the site plan Ex.D1, hence, they are not entitled for injunction. 3. It is settled position of law that to seek permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs are bound to prove their possession over the property in dispute. As per the findings recorded by both the Courts below, plaintiffs proved to be in possession of the entire suit land except the portion shown as AXYZ in the site plan Ex.D1. 4. In the second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C., findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below ordinarily can not be lightly disturbed until and unless some perversity or illegality is pointed out and further if any substantial question of law arises for consideration. 5. Since judgments are based on concurrent findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises for consideration, hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. RSA No.168 of 1988 (O&M) -3- ( ALOK SINGH ) 12th May, 2010 JUDGE ashish