C.M.No.10883-C of 2011 in RSA No.4889 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.10883-C of 2011 in RSA No.4889 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2011 Usha Devi .....Appellant v. Smt.Sham Nandini and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.10883-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 13.9.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the appeal at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.14508-C of 2010 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 96 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.14507-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.4889 of 2010 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 8.2.2010 passed by learned Additional District C.M.No.10883-C of 2011 in RSA No.4889 of 2010(O&M) -2- Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohtak, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Meham, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff alongwith respondent no.2 filed this suit for decree for possession of the property in dispute on the plea that the property is owned by Panchayat Brahmanan, Meham and that they are representatives of Panchayat Brahmanan, Meham, whereas respondent- defendant is in illegal possession of the property in dispute. Admittedly earlier as well a suit for permanent injunction was filed by present appellant-plaintiff, which was got dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Respondent-defendant also filed a suit against the present plaintiffs, which was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 2.11.2001, Ex.D9, vide which present plaintiffs were restrained from interfering in the construction being raised by present respondent-defendant over the property in dispute as per site plan sanctioned by the Municipal Committee. Hence, house was constructed by the respondent-defendant over the said property and she has been continuing in possession of the same. In those proceedings Local Commissioner had also given the report that present respondent-defendant was in possession of the premises in dispute. It has also been admitted by present appellant-plaintiff that house has been constructed by respondent-defendant on the property in dispute. Present C.M.No.10883-C of 2011 in RSA No.4889 of 2010(O&M) -3- appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for possession on the basis of title. However, as per case of appellant-plaintiff the owner of the suit property is not the present appellant in her individual capacity but the Bangla Panchayat Brahmanan. The present suit has not been filed by Bangla Panchayat Brahmanan. No evidence has been adduced by present appellant- plaintiff that she is representative of Bangla Panchayat Brahmanan. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that present appellant- plaintiff is having no locus standi to file the suit. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned 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. 21.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge