Regular Second Appeal No.4163 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-22.7.2010 Kirpal Dass Chela of late Gurmukh Dass and another ...Appellants Versus Ramanjit Dass Chela Mahant Gokul Muni and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of instant appeal and emanating from the record, is that Ramanjit Dass Chela Mahant Gukul Muni and Mahantani Swinderjit Kaur respondent-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the present suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining Kirpal Dass and others appellant-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) from interfering in their property in dispute, inter-alia, pleading that Gokul Muni Chela Gurmukh Dass Chela Sham Dass, the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was owner and in possession of the same. After his (Gokul Muni) death on 29.12.1991, they became the owners and in exclusive possession and the defendants have threatened to interfere and dispossess them from the disputed property. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the plaintiffs, they are owners and in exclusive possession but the defendants have threatened to dispossess them from the disputed property without any legal rights. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants, in the manner indicated here-in- above. 3. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action of the plaintiffs and non-joinder of necessary parties. They have denied the ownership and possession of Gokul Muni and the plaintiffs. The will Regular Second Appeal No.4163 of 2009 2 executed by Gokul Muni appointing plaintiff No.1 as his Chela, was stated to be illegal, null and void. On merits, the defendants claimed that Gurmukh Dass Chela Sham Dass purchased the suit land from one Gurmej Singh alias Inder Singh son of Hira Singh, vide sale deed dated 7.3.1964 and raised construction. Since said Gurmukh Dass Chela Sham Dass, during his life time, had executed a valid will in faovur of Bhagwan Baba Siri Chand Ji, so, the property in dispute came to be vested in the Gaddi of Baba Siri Chand Ji. Concisely, according to the defendants, they are owners and in possession and the plaintiffs have no concern with the property in dispute. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the relevant issues for proper adjudication of the case. 5. The parties brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleas. 6. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.10.1999. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-defendants filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.1.2009. 8. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of Regular Second Appeal No.4163 of 2009 3 thoughts over the entire matter, to me, there is no merit in the appeal. 10. However, the main argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and possession over the property in dispute, so, the Courts below ought to have dismissed their suit, is not only devoid of merits but misplaced as well. 11. As is evident from the record, the plaintiffs claimed that Gokul Muni Chela Gurmukh Dass Chela Sham Dass, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, was owner and in possession of the disputed property. In the wake of his (Gokul Muni) death on 29.12.1991, they became the owners and in exclusive possession of the same. According to the defendants, the property in dispute belonged to them. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- defendants that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their ownership, is not relevant in the present suit, because they filed a simple suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants and both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiffs are in possession. The trial Court has restrained the defendants from illegally dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property, except in due course of law. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly protected the possession of the plaintiffs and negatived the claim of the defendants in this respect. 12. All the remaining arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant connection. 13. Moreover, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has recorded the concurrent findings of fact that after the death of Gurmukh Dass, Mahant Gokul Muni alongwith the present plaintiffs was Regular Second Appeal No.4163 of 2009 4 residing in the property in dispute and after his death, they (plaintiffs) are in possession. Therefore, as the plaintiffs are in possession of the disputed property, they are entitled to injunction as prayed for. The trial Court further held that any observations made shall not operate res-judicata on the point of title between Mahant Gokul Muni and Ramanjit Dass plaintiff No.1, if any of the parties file suit for declaration on the basis of title or determine the status of plaintiff No.2 as wife and plaintiff No.1 Ramanjit Dass as son of Gokul Muni. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the 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 the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard, particularly when as held by the Courts below, this judgment will not operate res-judicata on the point of title between the parties. 14. Meaning thereby, the entire case 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 in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case . 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants. 16. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. 22.7.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge