R.S.A. NO.3499 OF 1999 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. NO.3499 OF 1999 (o & m) DECIDED ON : 23.08.2010 Lal Chand and another ...Appellants versus Sunehra Ram ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate, for the respondent. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is regular second appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment dated 15.05.1999 passed by Shri B.L.Singhal, Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra vide which appeal preferred by defendant against the judgment dated 27.11.1996 passed by Shri M.L.Gulati, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, was accepted. Lal Chand and Dharam Vir filed a suit for possession in respect of 8 marlas land in Khewat No.601 min, Khatoni No.848, Khasra No.218 situated within the revenue estate of village Sarsa as per copy of Jamabandi for the year R.S.A. NO.3499 OF 1999 -2- 1989-90. The plaintiffs have contended that they are co-sharers and owners of land and defendant is in possession of the suit property against the will and consent of the plaintiffs without any right. The plaintiffs have further pleaded that the defendant has no right to retain possession over the suit property. The defendant has contested the suit and filed written statement taking preliminary objections of maintainability; locus- standi; cause of action; estoppel etc. On merits, the defendant has contended that he is in possession of the suit land peacefully and continuously without any interference for the last more than 40 years. Replication was filed controverting the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement and reiterating the stand taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree for possession of suit land ? OPP 2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 3) Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD 4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD R.S.A. NO.3499 OF 1999 -3- 5) Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? OPD 6) Whether the defendant has become owner by way of adverse possession ? OPD 7) Relief. The learned trial, after appraisal of the evidence, returned the findings on Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. Issues No.2 to 6 were decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs. In view of the findings returned on all the issues, the suit of plaintiffs for possession was decreed. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, defendant preferred first appeal which was accepted vide judgment dated 15.05.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and the suit of the plaintiffs for possession was dismissed with costs. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 15.05.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra and judgment dated 27.11.1996 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa, the plaintiffs have preferred the present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that findings of the First Appellate Court that the defendant is the owner in possession of the suit property, is without any R.S.A. NO.3499 OF 1999 -4- substance. The plaintiffs are owners over the suit property and the defendant has dispossessed them forcibly. The trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court has committed grave error in accepting the appeal of the defendant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. However, learned counsel for the appellants has failed to point out that any substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. The First Appellate Court has returned the finding of fact that defendant-Sunehra Ram has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession and is in continuous possession for the last more than 40 years. That being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. There is nothing on the file that the said finding is based upon misreading and misinterpreting of evidence on the file. So, I have no hesitation to say that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. The question of fact regarding possession of the defendant over the suit property cannot be re-opened in the regular second appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. AUGUST 23, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE