RSA No. 2013 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2013 of 2005 Date of Decision: 25.08.2009 1. Joginder Singh s/o Bachan Singh; 2. Paramjit Singh s/o Joginder Singh; 3. Charan Singh s/o Joginder Singh; 4. Tarlok Singh s/o Joginder Singh; all r/o village Paprala, Tehsil Guhla, Distt. Kaithal. ... Appellants Versus 1. Malook Singh s/o Harjit Singh s/o Sh. Jawala Singh; 2. Bakshish Kaur wd/o Bachhitter Singh; 3. Gurdeep Singh; 4. Sewa Singh, both s/o Bachhitter Singh; 5. Jasvinder Kaur; 6. Devinder Kaur, both daughters of Bachhitter Singh; all r/o village Mohanpur, Tehsil Guhla, Biswedars of Village Paprala, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. ...Respondents 7. Smt. Chanan Kaur wd/o Anoop Singh; 8. Mahant Kaur widow of Mehal Singh; 9. Paramjit Singh; RSA No. 2013 of 2005 2 10. Gurbaj Singh, all sons of Mahal Singh; 11. Sarabjit Kaur d/o Mahal Singh; 12. Sukhwant Singh son of Anoop Singh; all r/o village Mohanpur, Tehsil Guhla, and landlord/biswedar of village Paprala, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. ...Proforma-Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Mohd. Yousaf, Advocate, for the appellants. Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, and 8 to 12 exparte. Name of respondent No. 7, who died, was deleted, vide order dated 21.01.08, as respondent No. 12, his LR, was already on the file. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 22.01.05, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which, it accepted the appeal of the plaintiffs/respondents, against the judgement and decree dated 27.08.01, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, dismissing the suit. 2. The property, in dispute, is a gair mumkin bara, measuring 2 kanals 1 marla, comprising khewat No. 19, khatoni No. 45, khasra RSA No. 2013 of 2005 3 No. 140/1(2-1), situated at village Paprala, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. The plaintiff/respondent No. 1, claimed himself to be the owner to the extent of 1 /2 share, over the land, in dispute, whereas, the legal heirs of Bachittar Singh, plaintiff No. 2 (deceased), and defendants No. 5 to 7, were claimed to be the owners, to the extent of remaining 1 /2 share. The plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 7, constructed one katcha room and one pucca room, in the suit property. It was stated that defendants No. 1 to 4, were put in possession of the suit property, by the plaintiffs, in good faith, as they were not having sufficient residential accommodation. They were put in possession thereof, on the condition that they would surrender/vacate the same, as and when, the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 7, required it. On 16.05.98, defendants No. 1 to 4, even threatened the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 7, to alienate the possessory rights of the suit property, and raise construction thereon, forcibly and illegally. Defendants No. 1 to 4, were many a time asked, to admit the claim of the plaintiffs, and defendants No. 5 to 7, over the suit land and hand over the possession thereof but to no avail. On their final refusal, left with no other alternative, a suit for possession and permanent injunction, was filed. 3. Defendants No. 1 to 4, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was stated that earlier a suit for injunction, with regard to the property, in dispute, was filed,by Karnail Singh etc., against defendants RSA No. 2013 of 2005 4 No. 1 to 4. In that suit, Karnail Singh, etc. claimed their possession alongwith the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 7, and on apprehending their failure therein, they filed the present suit. It was further stated that defendants No. 1 to 4, have been in possession of the suit land, since 09.07.82. Malook Singh, alongwith Anoop Singh, predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff No. 2 and defendants No. 5 to 7, sold away their 1 /2 share, in the suit land, to one Net Ram, r/o village Barwala, vide writing dated 25.05.80. The possession of the suit property, was handed over to him. On 09.07.82, Net Ram, sold away the suit property, to defendant No. 1. Thereafter, defendant No. 1, constructed his house and was in continuous possession thereof. It was further stated that, if the sale, in favour of Joginder Singh, defendant No. 1, was not proved, even, in that eventuality, he and his predecessor-in-interest Net Ram, had been in possession of the suit property, continuously, peacefully, uninterruptedly and their possession was hostile to the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 5 to 7. It was further stated that the right of ownership of the recorded owners, stood extinguished and defendants No. 1 to 4, became the owners by prescription, their possession over the suit property, being for more than 12 years. Even defendant No. 1, got installed an electric domestic connection, bearing No. PC-14-1636. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- RSA No. 2013 of 2005 5 (i) Whether the plaintiff alongwith proforma defendants No. 5 to 7, are the owners of the suit land in equal shares? OPP (ii) Whether defendants No. 1 to 4, are in illegal possession of the suit property? OPP (iii) If both the above issues proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the suit land as alleged? OPP (iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is collusive and is a result of collusion of Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh, and Gurnam Singh with the present plaintiff and proforma defendants? OPD (v) Whether the present suit is time barred? OPD (vi) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD (vii)Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiffs/respondents, which was accepted by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgement and decree dated 22.01.05. 7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendants/appellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the defendants/appellants, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. RSA No. 2013 of 2005 6 9. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that marks F and C, two documents, vide which, the appellants, purchased the property, in question, on 09.07.82, were not taken into consideration by the first Appellate Court, as a result whereof, it recorded perverse findings, in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, and rejecting the claim of defendants No. 1 to 4. He further submitted that the judgement and decree of the first Appellate Court, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellants, 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. According to P1 RSA No. 2013 of 2005 7 jamabandi, Anoop Singh and Malook Singh, were shown to be the owners, to the extent of 1 /2 share, whereas the other 1/ 2 share, was shown to be owned by Karnail Singh, Jarnail Singh, and Gurnam Singh. The appellants, were not recorded as owners or co-sharers, of the land, in dispute. According to them, they purchased the land, in dispute, vide writing dated 29.05.80, copy whereof is Mark F, and writing dated 09.07.82, copy whereof is Mark C. The original of these documents never saw the light of the day. Even no application, for leading secondary evidence, was moved, in respect of these documents. Not only this, these documents, related to the sale of property, for a sum of Rs. 4250/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively. Since these documents, related to the sale of immovable property, worth more than Rs. 100/-, in the absence of registration, the same did not confer any right or title upon the defendants/appellants. The first appellate Court, was, thus, right in holding, that the plaintiffs, were the owners of the land, in dispute; that the defendants had not become owners thereof by adverse possession; and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree for possession, as also for permanent injunction. The findings of fact, recorded by the first Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer, from any illegality or perversity, and, therefore, warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, thus, being without merit, must fail,and the same stands rejected. The judgement and decree of the first Appellate Courts, are liable to be RSA No. 2013 of 2005 8 upheld. 11. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 25.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE