R.S.A. No. 120 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 120 of 2006 Date of Decision: 8.12.2008 Gram Panchayat village Thatta Nawan District Kapurthala ...Appellant. Versus Jagbir Singh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by defendant No.2-Gram Panchayat of village Thatta Nawan is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2005 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 17.9.2004 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs claimed that they were in possession of the house and Haveli, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. It was pleaded that there was a boundary wall of about five feet in height around the suit property and the gates of the house and Haveli opened in the passage towards Northern side. The suit property was situated within the abadi of village Thatta Nawan and formed part of khasra Nos. 101//26 and 27 owned by R.S.A. No. 120 of 2006 -2- the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1-Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat wanted to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property and threatened to demolish the construction illegally and forcibly. The plaintiffs requested the defendants many a times not to do illegal designs but to no avail which gave rise to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction. To controvert the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that there was no passage towards Northern side of the suit property and the same was situated inside the Southern rasta/phirni of village and did not fall in khasra Nos. 101//26 and 27. It was further pleaded that the land measuring 12 marlas bearing khasra No. 101//26 was owned by plaintiff No.1 to the extent of ½ share and the remaining ½ share was owned by plaintiff No.3 and his brothers. Khasra No. 101//27/(0-11) was owned by plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in equal shares and towards North West of the said khasra numbers, there adjoined khasra No. 101//25/(2-0) owned by Gram Panchayat which carved out during consolidation in village towards Southern rasta/phirni, now metalled roads. According to the defendants, the said khasra numbers remained vacant plots since consolidation and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 had made some construction in small portion along the road in their plots bearing khasra Nos. 101//26 and 27 and also started digging foundation of remaining portion of their khasra numbers for laying boundary walls. It was next pleaded that the plaintiffs in connivance with their family members intended to encroach upon and to take the forcible possession of the land bearing khasra No. 101//25 owned by Gram R.S.A. No. 120 of 2006 -3- Panchayat and the defendants moved complaints to the higher authorities in that regard. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs had constructed the boundary walls upto the height of 2½ – 3 feet by encroaching upon some portion of the panchayat land forcibly and illegally. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property after constructing their house and Haveli and the defendants could not demolish any part of the same illegally and forcibly, except in due course of law. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 17.9.2004 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2005 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has made an attempt to reappreciate the evidence led by the parties before the trial court so as to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below which is not permissible under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The courts below had recorded a finding of fact that the suit property was a part and parcel of khasra Nos. 101//26 and 27 and the defendants had failed to prove any encroachment over the land bearing khasra No.101//25. No misreading of the evidence on record by the courts R.S.A. No. 120 of 2006 -4- below has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. December 8, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE