Regular Second Appeal No.830 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.830 of 2007 Date of Decision:-30.8.2011 Krishan Chand and another ...Appellants Versus Surat Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the appellants. Nemo for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not ? 2. Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the indicated core controversy, involved in the present regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that the civil suit filed by Surat Singh son of Ganesha respondent-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) for a decree of recovery of mesne profits on account of illegal use and occupation of land in dispute measuring 2 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Sukhdaspur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamunanagar, was decreed by the trial Court and Krishan Chand son of Puran Chand and his son Tara Chand appellant-defendants (for short “the defendants”) were directed to pay him the Regular Second Appeal No.830 of 2007 -2- mesne profits at the rate of ` 300/- per month from 7.2.1994 till the delivery of possession, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.2004. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 21.7.2006. 4. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 6. Ex facie, the celebrated argument of learned counsel that since there was no evidence on record to assess the amount of mesne profits at the rate of ` 300/- per month, so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, sans merit. 7. As is evident from the record that defendants were held to be in un- authorized possession of the portion in question. The earlier suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and defendants were directed to deliver the possession of disputed 2 marlas of land in question to the plaintiff, through the medium of judgment and decree dated 14.1.1997 (Ex.P1). It is not a matter of dispute that the first appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the Ist appellate Court, by way of judgment and decree dated 24.1.2000 (Ex.P2). Not only that, the 2nd appeal filed in this Court was also dismissed, vide judgment dated 11.2.2000 (Ex.P3). That means, the judgment and decree (Ex.P1) have already attained the finality and plaintiff is entitled to amount of mesne profits in lieu of illegal possession of the defendants on the land in dispute. 8. The trial Court as well as Ist appellate Court, after placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sadhu Singh v. Pritam Singh AIR 1976 P&H 38 Regular Second Appeal No.830 of 2007 -3- and scrutinizing the evidence in the right perspective, have recorded a finding of fact that as the defendants have illegally enjoyed the fruits of the land in question belonging to the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to amount of ` 300/- per month as mesne profits in this relevant connection. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendants did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 10. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, they have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. 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 appellant-defendants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 11. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants to assail the findings of the Courts below in this respect. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 12. Sequelly, the entire matter 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 Supreme Court in Regular Second Appeal No.830 of 2007 -4- Kashmir Singh's case (supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 13. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants. 14. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 30.8.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No