RSA No. 486 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 486 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.01.2009 Improvement Trust Yamuna Nagar & another .......... Appellants Versus Madhu Bala ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellants. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 1.2.2006 and 8.12.2008 passed by the learned Courts below vide which suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellant from interfering in actual physical possession of the plaintiff in any manner with respect to plot No. 385 measuring 250 Sq. yards, has been decreed. The plaintiff respondent brought a suit for injunction on the plea that the plot No. 385 measuring 250 Sq. yards situated in Sarojini Colony within the Municipal Limits of the Municipal Committee Yamuna Nagar was allotted to her on 12.2.1991 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Out of the sale consideration two installments stood paid and she also showed her willingness to pay the balance sale consideration. It was also pleaded by the plaintiff that, in fact, after the possession was handed RSA No. 486 of 2009 (O&M) 2 over to the plaintiff-respondent the plan for construction was also sanctioned by the appellant-defendants. The suit was contested on the plea that the case set up by the plaintiff-respondent was not correct as no allotment was made by the appellant No.1. The allotment letter was signed by Dayal Singh Ex. Chairman without there being any record of application with the Improvement Trust. It was also pleaded that action against Ex. Chairman Dayal Singh was being taken. The main plea of the appellant-defendants, therefore, was that as there was no application on record which was said to have been moved by the plaintiff-respondent, therefore, the claim of allotment could not be believed, especially when the amount towards installments was deposited directly in the Bank. The plea taken by the appellant-defendants was rejected by the learned Court in view of the fact that attempt was made by the appellants to allot this plot to one Joginder Singh an employee of the appellants. This allotment resulted in dispute and an enquiry was held by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. In enquiry, it was found that the plot was, in fact, allotted to the plaintiff-respondent and plan of construction was also sanctioned. The possession of the plot was also given by the Trust though it has been claimed by appellant that the same had been given on the asking of the Chairman. The learned Courts below recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the application for allotment was in fact moved by the plaintiff- respondent, but it may have been retained by Joginder Singh who was RSA No. 486 of 2009 (O&M) 3 interested in allotment, being employee of the defendant-appellant. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the following substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are outcome of misreading of evidence and, therefore, perverse ? On consideration of the matter, I do not find that the question of law, as framed, arises for consideration by this Court in this appeal. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plot was allotted to plaintiff/ respondent and plan was sanctioned also for construction by appellant, the plot is in possession of the plaintiff. Finding of fact has been recorded on appreciation of evidence which cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence as contended. No other conclusion than the one arrived at by learned Courts below can be formed on the basis of evidence brought on record, specially the enquiry report by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. No merit. Dismissed. 28.1.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE