IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1782 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.4.2009 Surjit Kaur and others. ....... Appellants through Shri Shri Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for Madan Sandhu, Advocate. Versus Juppa Singh @ Jagrup Singh. ....... Respondent through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 3.11.2008 and 16.3.2009 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and the District Judge, Mansa (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit and the appeal filed by Ghuka Singh @ Kishan Dev, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant were dismissed. Ghuka Singh @ Kishan Dev, husband of appellant no.1 and father of appellant nos. 2 to 6, had filed a suit for permanent injunction R.S.A.No.1782 of 2009 -2- .... pleading therein that the land measuring 6 kanals 13 marlas comprising in Khasra Nos. 131/6/1 (16), 132/1 (0-10) min (4-17) situated in village Khiala Kalan was in the ownership of the Scheduled Caste Society, Khiala Kalan and he was in exclusive possession thereof to the extent of ½ share as the same was allotted to him by it in which he had sown crops with which the defendant-respondent had no concern and it was prayed that the respondent be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed his written statement contesting the suit. He pleaded that Ghuka Singh had concealed the true facts and that the land was owned by the Scheduled Caste Society, Khiala Kalan of which he was a member and he was in possession of the disputed property. It was further pleaded that Ghuka Singh was never in possession of the suit property. The parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1.Whether the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit land?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? If so, to what effect/OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts? If so, its effect?OPD 5. Relief. R.S.A.No.1782 of 2009 -3- .... On appraisal of the entire evidence before it, the trial Court concluded that Ghuka Singh had failed to show anything from the record that he was in possession of the disputed property. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the present appellants preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court as Ghuka Singh seems to have died during the intervening period. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside. He further contended that Ghuka Singh was in possession of the suit property which was allotted to him by Scheduled Castes Society, Khiala Kalan,but the Courts below have failed to appreciate the same and have returned erroneous findings. I have thoughtfully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments. There is not an iota of evidence on record from which it can be inferred that Ghuka Singh was allotted the suit property by the Scheduled Castes Society, Khiala Kalan and he was put in possession thereof. Concededly, the case of the parties is that Scheduled Castes Society, Khiala Kalan was the owner of the suit property, but the said Society was not R.S.A.No.1782 of 2009 -4- .... impleaded as party in the suit. The Society was the best person, who could disclose regarding the allotment in favour of Ghuka Singh or the respondent. In any eventuality, it was Ghuka Singh, who had pleaded that he was owner and in possession of the suit property, which he had not been able to prove. Consequently, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be termed as erroneous or perverse so as to warrant interference in the Regular Second Appeal. No question of law has been shown to have arisen for determination in this appeal which is held to be devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 28,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge