RSA No.3795 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3795 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.9.2008 Moti Ram ......Appellant Versus Roshan and another ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. By way of this appeal, the plaintiff has impugned the judgment and decree dated 5.9.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari upholding the judgment and decree dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Rewari whereby the suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the property in dispute and further that the defendant be restrained from raising any construction or dispossessing the plaintiff, has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from raising any sort of construction over the land in question and also not to take forcible possession of the aforesaid land from the plaintiff inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff is continuously the owner and in possession of the suit land and the defendants have no concern with the same. It was also averred that the defendants want to take forcible possession of the disputed land to which they have no right and they were asked several times not to take forcible possession of the suit land and further not to raise any sort of RSA No.3795 of 2007 (O&M) 2 construction over the same but to no effect. Hence, this suit. 3. Respondents appeared and filed separate written statement denying the averments of the plaintiff that he is owner in possession of the disputed land. The suit property was the ancestral property of the parties to the suit and partition of the ancestral property had taken place. The land shown in the green colour in the site plan produced by the defendants fell to the share of the plaintiff, whereas the land shown in the blue colour fell to the share of defendant No.1 and the land shown in the Mehroon colour fell to the share of defendant No.1. The answering defendant has also taken the electric connection bearing No.UD-353 in the land shown in the blue colour in the site plan attached with the written statement. 4. After appraising the evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff with costs vide judgment and decree dated 27.1.2005. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari vide judgment and decree dated 5.9.2007. The relevant part of the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rewari is reproduced hereunder: “None of the parties has produced any revenue record relating to the disputed property. The parties to the suit are real brothers. The earlier suit filed by the appellant was dismissed in default. DW1 Roshan Lal has categorically stated that all the three brothers are residing separately on separate portions. A common passage leads to his residence as well as to the residence of Moti Ram. DW2 Mangat Ram has also made similar statement. The appellant has failed to establish his possession over the entire property as RSA No.3795 of 2007 (O&M) 3 alleged and as such, he is not entitled to seek the relief of injunction. The lower court has rightly discussed the evidence and facts of the case. The findings given on all the issues are correct and the same stand affirmed.” 6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below have misread and misconstrued the documentary evidence in the shape of mortgage deeds which clearly prove the title of the appellant and therefore, a substantial question of law has arisen whether impugned judgment and decree is perverse and is result of misreading and misconstruing of the evidence on record. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A perusal of Ex.PW4/1 and Ex.PW4/2 are the copies of affidavits of one Duli Chand son of Kallu which have been placed on record of Civil Suit No.831 on 26.7.1990. Vide this affidavit, Sh. Duli Chand has stated that he has mortgaged one plot for a sum of Rs.99/- in favour of Moti Ram-plaintiff. However, there is nothing on the record of the case to prove whether this mortgage deed was redeemed or not, or whether this mortgage is still operating. On the other hand, a specific finding has been given by the Courts below that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff for the same relief was dismissed in default. The Lower Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has affirmed the finding of the trial Court. It is well established principle of law that even if on reappreciation two views are possible, then the High Court will not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Thus, no substantial question of law arises RSA No.3795 of 2007 (O&M) 4 in this appeal. No merit. 10. Dismissed. September 11, 2008 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE RSA No.3795 of 2007 (O&M) 5