Regular Second Appeal No.1066 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1066 of 2009 Date of Decision:-14.7.2011 Hari Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Sarwan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.P.L.Singla, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that the suit filed by Sarwan Singh son of Jodh Singh respondent-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Hari Singh, Charan Singh and Chhotu Ram sons of Gurbax Singh appellant-defendants (for short “the defendants”) from interfering in his peaceful possession over the plot in dispute, was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 19.10.2007. 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed the appeal, which was accepted by the first appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008, the operative part of which is (para 13) as under:- “Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussions, it becomes crystal clear that the plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession of the suit land as shown in yellow colour in the site plan by dint of the sale deed dated 21.2.1991 and that the defendants had no right, title or concerned whatsoever either with the ownership or with the possession thereof. Regular Second Appeal No.1066 of 2009 -2- Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff stands accepted with costs. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.2007 passed by the learned trial court are hereby set aside. Accordingly, the defendants are restrained from interfering in the peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land/disputed plot by way of raising construction thereon or in any other manner whatsoever. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to the record room.” 3. The appellant-defendants did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and preferred the present appeal. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal. 5. What is not disputed here is that plaintiff Sarwan Singh son of Jodh Singh has also filed civil suit No.172 on 20.9.2000 against the defendants. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that earlier suit between the parties was with respect to the same property, which is subject matter in the present suit. 6. At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has placed on record photo copies of judgment and decree dated 6.4.2009 (Annexures DX and DY). A perusal of the said judgment and decree would go to show that having completed all the codal formalities and after scanning the entire evidence in a right perspective, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by way of judgment (Annexure DX), which, in substance, is (paras 11 and 12) as under:- “In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff, learned counsel on behalf of the defendants, on perusal of the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses and defendants' witnesses as well as on perusal of the documents placed on file by the learned counsel on behalf of both the parties, I find that there is every merit in the claim of the plaintiff that he is owner and in possession of the suit land as detailed in para No.1 of the plaint and he has right over the ten feet wide passage, which provides right of access to the plaintiff to the PWD road, there being no other access available to the plaintiff. Moreover, I find that the aforesaid claim of the plaintiff stands admitted by the defendant No.1 Hari Singh himself when he Regular Second Appeal No.1066 of 2009 -3- appeared into the witness box as DW1. The defendant No.1 Hari Singh when appeared into the witness box in the capacity of DW1, though, in his examination-in-chief has tried to support his alleged claim but the truth in this regard oozed out in its conspicuous form when the defendant No.1 as DW1 could not withstand the scrutiny of his cross-examination and had to concede therein that he has no dispute with the land as well as the rasta which was sold by Mehar Singh to Swaran Singh. On perusal of the sale deed Ex.PB dated 21.2.1991 I find that Mehar Singh has sold half i.e. 9 marlas share to Swaran Singh son of Jodh Singh alongwith the rasta. Thus, when as per the own admission of the defendant no.1 Hari Singh as referred above to the effect that he has no concern with the rasta as well as the land which was sold by Mehar Singh to Swaran Singh, then, certainly, this Court is left with no other option except to conclude irresistibly and inevitably with conclusive certainty that the present defendants had no right to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the passage as shown in letters ABCDEF in the site plan and situated at village Bhanu, Tehsil and District Panchkula, in any manner. The plaintiff has also proved his case through cogent and convincing evidence. The plaintiff himself appeared into the witness box as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A reiterating the facts and averments mentioned in the different paras of the plaint. The cross-examination put to the plaintiff's witness could not yield any result in favour of the defendants. DW3 Bant Ram has also failed to rebut the stand of the plaintiff. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved his case through oral as well as documentary evidence. The claim of the plaintiff is also admitted by the defendant No.1 when he appeared into the witness box as DW1. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that issue No.1 goes in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.” 7. It is not a matter of dispute that the judgment and decree (Annexures DX and DY) have already attained the finality. In this view of the matter, once the plaintiff has already been held to be owner and in possession of the suit property, by means of judgment (Annexure DX) in earlier suit and as also so held by the first appellate Court in the present suit, in that eventuality, to me, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and decree of Ist appellate Court in the obtaining circumstances of the case. Regular Second Appeal No.1066 of 2009 -4- 8. Moreover, the first Appellate Court has recorded the valid reasons in the impugned judgment. Such judgment containing valid reasons cannot possibly be set aside, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment by the learned counsel for the appellants. 9. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 14.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No