IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3174 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 22, 2011. Purshotam Lal and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Smt. Joginder Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K.Arya, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 06.02.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur vide which suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. RSA No.3174 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for possession against respondents-defendants after removal of Malba from portion over the property in dispute shown by letters EFG and also for removal of Khal shown by letters GFJ and also the portion shown by letters GHBI after removal of Malba as shown in the site plan attached with the plaint. Suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that demarcation report was placed on record by appellants-plaintiffs and however, the same was illegally rejected by the courts below. Dispute is regarding the fact as to whether any portion of Khasra number owned by present appellants-plaintiffs has been encroached upon by respondents- defendants. It has been admitted by one of the witnesses of appellants- plaintiffs, namely, Charan Dass, PW2 that house of defendants is existing for the last 40-50 years and the water channel was also carved by respondent- defendant. Even the original alleged demarcation report has not been proved. The revenue official who allegedly conducted the demarcation has also not been examined. Hence, both the courts below after appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that appellants-plaintiffs have failed to prove 2 RSA No.3174 of 2010 that any portion of the land owned by the present appellants-plaintiffs has been encroached upon by respondents-defendants. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 22, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3