C.M.Nos.5363-64-C of 2011 in RSA No.1910 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.Nos.5363-64-C of 2011 in RSA No.1910 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 15, 2011 Lal Singh .....Appellant v. Manohar Lal and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.D.S.Nirban, Advocate for the appellant. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5363-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.5364-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1910 of 2011 Present appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide which appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 against judgment and decree dated 31.7.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mahendergarh, decreeing suit filed by respondent-plaintiff, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. C.M.Nos.5363-64-C of 2011 in RSA No.1910 of 2011(O&M) -2- Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for permanent injunction restraining present appellant-defendant no.1 and respondent-defendant no.2 from interfering in his possession over the shop in dispute. Case of respondent-plaintiff is that respondent-defendant no.2 is owner of the shop in dispute which was given on rent to the present appellant-defendant no.1 and, however, appellant-defendant no.1 has surrendered possession of the said shop to respondent-plaintiff being real brother on receipt of `65,000/- and he executed a document in this regard in the presence of witnesses in his favour on 24.6.1993 and since then he has been continuing in possession of the same as tenant. Plea has also been taken that he is having electricity connection in his name and that it was he who used to deposit the rent with respondent-defendant no.2. On notice being issued present appellant-defendant no.1 has admitted his relations with respondent-plaintiff. He has also admitted that he has taken the shop on rent from respondent-defendant no.2. However, he denied having received `65,000/- and executed a document dated 24.6.1993. It is also denied that he had surrendered the possession in favour of respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-defendant no.2 filed separate written statement admitting the factum of renting out the shop in dispute to present appellant- defendant no.1, who continues to be tenant of respondent-defendant no.2. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff and the present appellant was restrained from interfering in possession of respondent-plaintiff over the shop in dispute except in due course of law. Appeal filed by present appellant- defendant no.1 against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by C.M.Nos.5363-64-C of 2011 in RSA No.1910 of 2011(O&M) -3- learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul. It has been contended by learned counsel for appellant- defendant no.1 that respondent-plaintiff has failed to prove that he is owner of the shop in dispute. Hence, it is contended that no injunction can be granted against a true owner. However, there is no force in this plea of counsel for appellant- defendant no.1. It is not the case of respondent-plaintiff that he is owner of the shop in dispute. Rather, admittedly respondent-defendant no.2 is owner of the shop in dispute, which was taken on rent by the present appellant- defendant no.1. Appellant is real brother of respondent-plaintiff. It is case of respondent-plaintiff that his brother surrendered possession of the shop in dispute to him vide writing Ex.PW2/B and since then he has been continuing in possession of the same. Present appellant has also admitted that he alongwith respondent-plaintiff remained joint till 1990-91. He has also stated that electricity meter was installed in the name of respondent- plaintiff and that he had been paying electricity bill. He has stated that he never made payment of any electricity bill. He has also failed to prove any receipt regarding payment of rent to Municipal Committee or Panchayat Samiti Kanina after execution of writing Ex.PW4/B. Hence, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that respondent-plaintiff is continuing in permissive possession of the shop in dispute since execution of writing Ex.PW4/B. Respondent-plaintiff has also examined two attesting witnesses of writing Ex.PW4/B. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below C.M.Nos.5363-64-C of 2011 in RSA No.1910 of 2011(O&M) -4- is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 15.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge