Regular Second Appeal No. 3860 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3860 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.3.2009 *** Bimal Kaur .. Appellant VS. Gamo & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. CM No. 1656-C of 2009 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the appeal is restored to its original number. CM No. 11544-C of 2008 Heard. Application is allowed and delay of 47 days in re-filing the present appeal stands condoned. CM No. 11545-C of 2008 Heard. Application is allowed. Delay in depositing the deficient court fee stands condoned. RSA No. 3860 of 2008 On request, the appeal is taken on Board for hearing, today itself. This is plaintiff's regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), challenging concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below holding that the plaintiff-appellant is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants in respect of the suit land. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, this Court is of Regular Second Appeal No. 3860 of 2008 2 the considered view that no question of law warranting admission of the appeal arises for determination in this appeal. The claim of the plaintiff being in possession of the suit land belonging to Kapoor Singh, being his widow since she performed Karewa Marriage with him was found not true as neither the revenue record reflected her possession of the suit land nor any particulars of the land in her possession were given by her. Thus, it was held that she is not entitled to the relief of injunction against the defendants, who are legal representatives of deceased Kapoor Singh and have rightly inherited the estates left out by the deceased. That apart the plaintiff failed to prove that the Karewa marriage between her and Kapoor Singh was a valid marriage, in presence of living spouse Satpal Singh, who as per own showing of the plaintiff was alive at the alleged date of Karewa ceremony and thus, it was rightly held that the said Karewa certificate does not confer any status of legally wedded wife upon the plaintiff. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The findings are based on cogent evidence, oral as well as documentary, and it cannot be concluded that the findings are laconic or they lack the support of evidence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE March 27,2009 Jiten