Regular Second Appeal No.1858 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-5.8.2010 Ramavtar son of Hari Lal and Naresh son of Rampat ...Appellant Versus Brij Lal son of Har Dayal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Harminder Singh, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Tersenessly, the facts, relevant for disposal of present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Ramavtar son of Hari Lal and Naresh son of Rampat appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit, seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining Brij Lal son of Har Dayal and others respondent-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) from interfering with their use and occupation of the suit land. Concisely, according to the plaintiffs, they have been continuing to be in its exclusive possession as co-sharers in “Shamlat Patti Hitlal”. They have stored stones, manure and timber etc. in it. The defendants are not allowing them to lift these articles and want to take forcible possession of the land in dispute without any legal basis. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in the manner depicted here-in-above. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed their written statements, in which, they have denied the ownership and possession of plaintiffs over the disputed land. They claimed that they are owners and in possession and stored their stones, manure and timber etc. in it. It was being used by them as 'gatwar'. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all Regular Second Appeal No.1858 of 2010 2 other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues for proper adjudication of the case. 4. The parties to the lis, brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective stands. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.1.2007. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.9.2009. 7. The appellant-plaintiffs still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the appeal. 9. However, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiffs are proved to be in possession of the suit land, so, the Courts below ought to have decreed their suit, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 10. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs claimed that they are in possession of the disputed land, which was completely denied by the defendants. In that eventuality, a heavy burden of proof was upon the plaintiffs to prove their possession over the suit property, but they have miserably failed in this respect. 11. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that Regular Second Appeal No.1858 of 2010 3 the plaintiffs have failed to prove their exclusive ownership and possession over the suit property by leading cogent and reliable evidence and are not entitled to any relief. 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 appellant-plaintiffs, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this relevant behalf. 12. Moreover, 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 in the second appeal, in view of 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, 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 present case. 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs. 14. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 5.8.2010 Judge AS