IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3899 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.2.2010 Ruminder Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Jaswinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is defendants' appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 9.10.2006 and that of the first Appellate Court dated 5.6.2009. The dispute as raised by the plaintiff/respondent was that he was owner of Khasra No.19//18/2 which had fallen to his share after the partition had been effected between the appellant and respondent No.1 and further that there is a tubewell existing in the said khasra number which is owned and possessed by him and that the appellants be restrained from disconnecting the electric connection and also to restrain the appellants, who were defendants No.1 to 4 in the suit, from interfering in the operation of the tubewell. The appellants/defendants pleaded that the tubewell was existing in the said Khasra number as claimed by the R.S.A.No.3899 of 2009 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/respondent but it was existing in the area which was in their possession and which had come to their share after the partition. Both the courts concluded on the basis of evidence that the tubewell exists in Khasra No.19//18/2 which is in possession of the plaintiff/respondent and that the appellants have failed to prove the existence of tubewell in their land. Aggrieved by the findings of the Courts below, the present regular second appeal has been filed and the learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is complete misreading of evidence as the documentary evidence has been completely ignored. In para no.12 of the memorandum of appeal the appellants have formulated the following question of law :- “1. Whether the ld. both the courts below erred in misreading the evidence led by the appellants? 2. Whether the findings ignoring material piece of evidence be sustained? 3. Whether the both the ld. Courts below erred in not appreciating the pleadings in proper perspective? 4. Whether on the basis of unsigned affidavit the ownership of tubewell connection can be transferred in favour of the plaintiff? 5. Whether the ld. Lower Appellate Court committed serious error by simply reproducing the judgment of ld. Lower Court without its own application of mind? After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and R.S.A.No.3899 of 2009 (O&M) -3- after perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The witnesses of the appellants i.e. DW1 Avtar Singh and DW2 Gurbux Singh did not support their case. DW1 Avtar Singh categorically stated that the tubewell was in the land belonging to the plaintiff/respondent which had come to his share after partition and he was paying the electricity bills after the said period. Similarly, DW2 Gurbux Singh testified that after partition Khasra No.19/18/2, which is relevant khasra number, was owned by the plaintiff/respondent which was also borne out from the copy of jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 (Ex.P-8). If these two statements are read conjointly, then there is no escape from the conclusion that a finding of fact has been recorded in favour of the plaintiff/respondent that the land in dispute belonged to him and so was the tubewell. No substantial question of law arises in the opinion of this Court in the instant appeal which is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed. Consequently, the stay application is also dismissed. 24.2.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss