RSA No.2978 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2978 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2011 Shangara Singh .....Appellant v. Malkiat Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Vikram Bali, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.8214-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2978 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 17.2.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, partly allowing appeal filed by respondent-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 20.3.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Phagwara, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction 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, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute and that appellant- defendant is not his attorney and is having no right to deal with the suit land with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant-defendant in dealing with the said land in any manner, RSA No.2978 of 2011(O&M) -2- whatsoever. Both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that power of attorney Ex.D1 was executed by respondent- plaintiff in favour of appellant-defendant. Hence, relief of declaration, as sought by respondent-plaintiff was declined, as he has not sought relief of possession. As per power of attorney, Ex.D1, possession was handed over to present appellant-defendant and he was authorised to manage the said property. However, later on, respondent-plaintiff, who is admittedly owner of the property in dispute issued a notice Ex.P3, vide which he restrained the present appellant-defendant from transferring or dealing with the property in any manner, without his consent and instructions. Learned first appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court only to the extent that present appellant-defendant is restrained from dealing with the property or transferring the same in any manner without consent and instructions of the respondent-plaintiff being its owner. 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 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. 19.8.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge