RSA No. 1316 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1316 of 2006 Date of Decision: 04.08.2009 1. Puran Singh; 2. Labh Singh; 3. Prem Singh; 4. Narinder Singh; all sons of Swaran Ram; 5. Kanta Devi wd/o Sh. Swaran Ram; 6. Satya Rani; 7. Sudesh Rani; all d/o Sh. Swaran Ram; r/o village Ugala, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. ... Appellants Versus 1. Jarnail Singh; 2. Mukhtiar Singh; 3. Sukhdev Singh; all s/o Banta Singh, r/o village Ugala, Tehsil Barara, District Ambala. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Y.P. Turka, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. A.K. Jindal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 2 and 3, already ex-parte. RSA No. 1316 of 2006 2 SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 20.01.2006, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ambala, vide which, it accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 27.01.2004, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction. 2. The plaintiff namely Swarn Ram (since deceased) and his brothers Mani Ram and Rati Ram, were owners, in possession of residential house built over plot No. 105 after purchasing the said plot vide sale deed dated 07.09.1974. The plaintiff claimed that the suit land adjoins plot No. 105 and he has been using it as his courtyard, since 1974, as owner openly and without any interruption from any side. The plaintiff and his brothers were using the suit land for tethering their cattle. All the villagers knew it that the plaintiff and his brothers, were owners, in possession of the suit land. The defendants started alleging that they had purchased some open land from Lachhman Dass etc. which was situated on the western side of the property of Mani Ram brother of the plaintiff, and under the pretext of purchasing the same, they (defendants) were planning to encroach upon it i.e. the courtyard of the houses of the plaintiff and his brothers. The defendants, were many a time, asked not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, and his brothers, over the suit land, but to no avail. On the final refusal of the defendants, to desist, from their illegal designs, left with no other alternative, a suit for permanent injunction, was filed. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was RSA No. 1316 of 2006 3 pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had no locus-standi to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts from the Court, and filed a wrong site plan. It was denied that plot No. 105, was purchased by the plaintiff and his brothers. It was further denied that the suit land, was the courtyard of the plaintiff. It was stated that defendant No. 1 has been the owner in possession of the suit land since 05.03.1997, when he purchased the same from Brij Bhallab Singh, and the plaintiff, had no right, title or interest, in the suit land. It was further stated that defendant No. 1, was using the suit land, for collecting cow dung cakes, and other miscellaneous purposes. Some trees were also standing thereon. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff alongwith his brothers is owner in possession of the land in dispute? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1, is proved, then whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP (iii) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form? OPP (iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendants/respondents, which was accepted by the Court of Additional RSA No. 1316 of 2006 4 District Judge, Ambala, vide judgement and decree dated 20.01.2006. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the plaintiffs/appellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the trial Court, was right, in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, holding that, he was in possession of the property, marked by words ABCD, which was his courtyard. He further submitted that the house of the plaintiff adjoins the property, marked by words ABCD, which was purchased, by him, vide sale deed. He further submitted that the possession of the plaintiff, over the property, in dispute, was duly proved, but the Appellate Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that he was not entitled to the injunction prayed for. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent No. 1, submitted that the plaintiff, even did not produce the sale deed, and got the same proved, in respect of plot No. 105, which according to him, adjoined the property, in dispute. He further submitted that the plaintiff, was not in possession of the property, in dispute, nor was the owner thereof. He further submitted that Brij Bhalab Singh, sold the property, in dispute, in favour of the defendant/respondent, vide sale deed D1 dated 05.03.1997. He further submitted that the first Appellate Court, was, thus, right, in accepting the appeal, against the judgement and decree dated 27.01.2004, rendered by the trial Court. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. RSA No. 1316 of 2006 5 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. No doubt, the plaintiff, claimed that he had been in possession of the property, in dispute, which adjoins his house, constructed on plot No. 105, since long. The sale deed, in respect of the adjoining property, i.e. plot No. 105, was not produced by him. It was only in rebuttal, that he tendered photocopy of the sale deed into evidence, which was objected to. The same was rightly not taken into consideration by the first Appellate Court, as the same, could not be admitted into evidence, as no application for leading secondary evidence, in respect of the sale deed, was moved. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, that the plaintiff, was not in possession of the property, in dispute; that the defendant/respondent, was in possession of the property, in dispute, as owner on the basis of sale deed D1, after having purchased the same, from Brij Bhalab Singh; and that the plaintiff, was not entitled to the injunction RSA No. 1316 of 2006 6 prayed for, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the plaintiff, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 04.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE