-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 3456 of 2010 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 21, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 3456 of 2010 (O&M). Gurnam Singh ... Appellant VERSUS Jatinder Singh and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr.Surinder Singh Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. S.S. Chadha, Advocate, for respondent No.2. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.10088-C of 2010. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3456 of 2010 (O&M). 23 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.3456 of 2010 (O&M). Plaintiff Gurnam Singh filed the instant suit for permanent injunction in respect of the house in dispute seeking an order of restraint against the defendants not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said house. The trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 10.2.2009 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff- appellant went in appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.4.2010. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Plaintiff-appellant alleged that his grand-father Bir Singh, who had migrated from Pakistan after partition in 1947, had settled in Jagraon and occupied the house in dispute. Bir Singh died on 3.5.1995 and thereafter the plaintiff along with other family members was residing in the said house. The plaintiff-appellant was owner in possession of the house in dispute without any interruption. Defendant-respondent No.1 pleaded that neither the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit house bearing No.992 MC nor he inherited the same. Earlier, Joginder Singh, father of the plaintiff, had also filed a civil suit concerning the said house, which was dismissed by the Civil Court. -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 3456 of 2010 (O&M). Defendant-respondent No.2 also denied that grand-father of the plaintiff or the plaintiff raised any construction of the house in dispute. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording their evidence and hearing the learned counsel for the parties partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are the findings of fact. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. Satwinder Singh (D.W.1) stated that there was a dispute between father of the plaintiff, namely, Joginder Singh and his (Joginder Singh's) brother Inder Singh. Inder Singh had sold his share in the disputed house to defendant No.1 Jatinder Singh Chadha and as per agreement dated 28.7.2001 (Exhibit D.1) Joginder Singh had received Rs.12,000/- from Inder Singh. Since then, defendant No.1 was in possession of the suit house. Darshan Singh (D.W.2) also deposed on the same lines as Satwinder Singh (D.W.1). Daljit Singh (D.W.3) stated that he knew the parties personally and Raksha Rani daughter of Joginder Singh and sister of plaintiff Gurnam Singh, through her attorney Naranjan Singh (defendant- respondent No.2), had sold property No.672 and property -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 3456 of 2010 (O&M). No.992-B to defendant No.1 Jatinder Singh Chadha vide sale deed dated 8.10.2001 (Exhibit D.2). Daljit Singh (D.W.3) is one of the marginal witnesses of the said sale deed. He proved the sale deed (Exhibit D.2) and endorsement (Exhibit D.3) made thereon. Defendant Jatinder Singh Chadha (D.W.7), wrongly numbered as D.W.6, stated that he had purchased the property in dispute from aforesaid Raksha Rani through her attorney Naranjan Singh (defendant-respondent No.2) for a consideration of Rs.3,15,000/- vide sale deed dated 8.12.2001. He further sated that he was residing in house No.992-B which was earlier part of House No.992 and installed the electric connection therein. In fact, contention of the plaintiff was that he was owner in possession of the house shown as ABCD in the site plan and contention of defendant No.1 was that he was owner in possession of the house shown as DEFG in the site plan. Since the plaintiff and defendant No.1 claimed possession on different parts of the house shown in the site plan, the trial Court rightly restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the house shown as ABCD in the site plan and, at the same time, restrained the plaintiff from interfering in the peaceful possession of defendant No.1 over the house shown as DEFG in the site plan. The lower appellate Court was also justified in upholding the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. No interference is called for in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent -5- Regular Second Appeal No. 3456 of 2010 (O&M). illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 21, 2011. JUDGE ak