R.S.A. No. 3998 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3998 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.01.2010 Daler Singh and another ....Appellants Versus Amarjit Kaur and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed, against the judgment and decree dated 4.8.2009 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellants, seeking injunction against the defendant/respondents, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/appellants brought a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant/respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of plaintiff/respondents. It was pleaded case of the plaintiff/appellants, that they are in possession of the property in dispute, on the basis of transfer made by Hira Singh in their favour. Learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that it was the husband of Amarjit Kaur, who was in possession of 7 kanals of land, whereas Hira Singh was in possession of 5 kanals 14 marlas of land. The learned Courts below, therefore, held, that once Hira Singh himself was not in possession of the land, he could not have transferred the land to the plaintiff/appellants R.S.A. No. 3998 of 2009 (O&M) -2- and dismissed the suit, as the property of the husband was inherited by Amarjit Kaur defendant/respondent. The concurrent finding of fact is sought to be challenged by the learned counsel for the appellants by raising the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below is outcome of misreading of pleadings and the evidence on record? 2. Whether the learned Courts below were justified in recording the respondents as co- sharers in absence of any pleadings to this effect?” In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellants contends, that as per the revenue record, it was the appellants who were show in possession of the property in dispute, therefore, they were entitled to injunction prayed for. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that husband could not be declared as co-owner, as it was not a case set up by her in the written statement. The findings of the learned Courts below, therefore, are said to be perverse being outcome of misreading of evidence. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The plaintiff/appellants had sought injunction claiming themselves to be owner in possession of the land measuring 7 kanals, as detailed in the head-note of the plaint, on the basis of mutation of exchange No. 5701. The injunction sought by the plaintiff/appellants was on the basis of ownership. The learned Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding, that the plaintiff/appellants R.S.A. No. 3998 of 2009 (O&M) -3- were seeking ownership through exchange with Hira Singh, whereas revenue record showed that Hira Singh himself was not owner of 7 kanals of land, as claimed by the plaintiff/appellants, rather it was the husband of Amarjit Kaur, who was recorded in possession of property in dispute. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of evidence or pleadings nor can be said to be perverse, as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) January 18, 2010 Judge R.S.