IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Regular Second Appeal No. 1600 of 2006 Date of decision: 7.4.2008 Mohan Lal Versus Resham Lal and others --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. The plea of the plaintiff-Mohan Lal for grant of a decree for permanent injunction having failed before the courts below, he has now come to this Court in second appeal. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2000, on the averments that defendant-Sohan Lal was insane like person for the last 14/15 years and was living under the care and protection of his sister, Smt. Giano, who was also known as Daljit Kaur and who had no interest adverse to that of Sohan Lal; the house in dispute had been built up by the plaintiff by virtue of a family arrangement which took place 20 years ago and he had spent a sum of Rs. two lacs approximately thereon; the plaintiff recently constructed one more room and a bath room in the disputed building and had also repaired the roof. Some litigation was going on between the heirs of Chanan Ram including the plaintiff and defendant-Sohan Lal wherein the other heirs of Chanan Ram had admitted that the plaintiff RSA No. 1600 of 2006 was in exclusive possession of the house in dispute. But defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had started threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the house in dispute alleging that they had purchased the said house from Sohan Lal defendant vide a registered sale deed. It was alleged that if there was any such sale deed whereby the house in dispute had been sold in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the same was illegal, null and void as Sohan Lal defendant was not a man of sound mind and, thus, was not competent to execute any sale deed personally. It was in these circumstances, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from taking forcible possession of the house in dispute from him and from interfering in his peaceful possession over the said house forcibly except in due course of law, i.e. of three rooms, one verandah, one kitchen, one bath-cum-latrine, one court yard and boundary wall fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. The defendants filed written statement denying the averments of the plaintiff. Additionally, it was stated that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were the absolute owners and in possession of the house in dispute which had been sold to them by defendant No.3 through registered sale deed dated 25.9.2000 for a consideration of Rs. 2,82,000/-. It was further stated that earlier also, another suit on similar pleas was filed by the present plaintiff against defendant No.1 and others which was dismissed by the court of Shri D.P. Singla, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur on 10.9.1999. Not only this, yet another suit filed by the plaintiff had also been dismissed on 7.8.1995 and in both the judgments, it was held that the present plaintiff was neither a co-sharer nor was in possession of the property in dispute. Pa ge nu RSA No. 1600 of 2006 The trial court answered the primary issues, namely, “whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?” and “whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for?” against the plaintiff. On the basis of the aforesaid, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.2005. In appeal, carried by the plaintiff, the findings returned by the trial court were affirmed and consequently the appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4.6.2005. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the record. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff had not been able to substantiate his pleas raised in the suit. The findings arrived at by the courts below are based on appreciation of the evidence both oral as well as documentary, available on the record. There is nothing on record and even nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel that any of the findings recorded by the courts below was wrong and illegal in any manner warranting interference by this Court in the second appeal. No substantial question of law even arises in the appeal for the consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) April 07, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* Pa ge nu