Regular Second Appeal No.3347 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3347 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 27.7.2011 Smt.Murti and others ...Appellants Versus Dhanpat and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Arun Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that Dhanpat and others respondent-plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession and the contrary revenue entries in respect of the property in dispute are wrong, illegal, null, void and not binding on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Rati Ram son of Hukmi (since deceased), being represented by his LRs appellant Nos.1 to 7 and Shish Ram son of Prabhu appellant No.8-defendant No.2 (for short “the defendants”), from interfering into their (plaintiffs) peaceful possession over the suit land. 2. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief in so far as relevant, was that Durgi Devi and Santosh daughters of Smt.Ganga Devi were the owners and in possession of a big chunk of land. As per settlement among co-sharers of the joint khewat, Durgi Devi and Santosh were stated to be in actual possession of the land in dispute. They sold the land measuring 0 Kanal 17 Marlas, by way of sale deed Regular Second Appeal No.3347 of 2009 -2- dated 11.9.1998 (Ex.PW1/A) for a sale consideration of `51,000/- through Ram Niwas, their general power of attorney. It was claimed that Ram Niwas had delivered the possession of 17 Marlas of land to the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale deed. One room alongwith Tin shed was constructed in the disputed property on its western side. One hand pump was claimed to have been installed in it by the plaintiffs. In all, according to the plaintiffs that they are owners and in actual possession, but the contrary entries in the revenue record were stated to be illegal and without notice to them and the defendants intend to interfere in their possession without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of declaration/permanent injunction against the defendants in the manner described hereinbefore. 3. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant No.1 filed written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, limitation, nonjoinder of necessary parties, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 claimed that he has been in continuous possession of the suit property as owner since 1960. Smt.Durgi Devi and Santosh did not have any right, title or interest in it. According to defendant No.1, no part of the property was given to Durgi Devi and Santosh in settlement. 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 of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings contained in the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case as depicted in the impugned judgment. 5. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 6. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 15.3.2005. Regular Second Appeal No.3347 of 2009 -3- 7. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, Murti and other LRs of Rati Ram original defendant No.1 and Shish Ram defendant No.2, filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009. 8. The appellant Smt.Murti and other LRs of Rati Ram, original defendant No.1 and Shish Ram defendant No.2, still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant- defendants that since the plaintiffs are not proved to be owners and in actual possession of the suit land, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing their suit, lacks merit. 11. As is evident from the record that plaintiffs claimed that they have purchased the property in dispute measuring 17 marlas, vide sale deed (Ex.PW1/A). The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that the plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit property and the defendants have no right, title or interest in it. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 2.3.2009. 12. Meaning thereby, both the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has recorded the concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs are owners and in possession of the suit property and the defendants have no right, title or interest in Regular Second Appeal No.3347 of 2009 -4- it. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of 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 well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings of the Courts below in this regard. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 14. In this manner, the entire case 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, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 27.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No