Regular Second Appeal No.2426 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-15.7.2010 Lala Ram ...Appellant Versus Mani Ram and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, relevant for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Lala Ram son of Siri Ram appellant- plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the present suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that he is owner and in possession with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining his brother Mani Ram and Bhim Singh and Arjun Singh sons of Mani Ram respondent-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) from encroaching upon any portion of the disputed property. The case set up by the plaintiff, in brief, in so far as relevant, was that he is using the vacant disputed portion as a court-yard and the doors of his house open in it. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the plaintiff, he is owner and in possession of the disputed portion, but the defendants started raising construction over it without any legal right. He asked them not to do so, but in vain, which necessitated him (plaintiff) to file the present suit. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, Regular Second Appeal No.2426 of 2008 2 locus standi and cause of action of the plaintiff and limitation etc. On merits, the defendants claimed that the plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of any portion of the disputed property, which is owned and possessed by them (defendants). It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiff filed the replication. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective stands. 6. The trial Court, on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.7.2005. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.5.2008. 8. The appellant (plaintiff) still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 10. The solitary argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiff is proved to be owner and in possession of the disputed property, so, the courts below ought to have decreed his suit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 11. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff claimed his ownership Regular Second Appeal No.2426 of 2008 3 and possession over the property in dispute, in that eventuality, a very heavy burden of proof was on him to prove his case, but he has miserably failed in this relevant connection. It is not a matter of dispute that the plaintiff did not produce any document of title to prove his ownership and possession. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his ownership and possession over the disputed property, which is part of khasra Nos.209 and 210, possessed by the defendants. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 12. Meaning thereby, the entire matter revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments/decrees of the courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 15.7.2010 Judge AS