R.S.A. No.499 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.499 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 2.3.2010 Dev Raj Singh .... Appellant VERSUS Kulwant Singh .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present:- Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the appellant. MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M. No.1362-C of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A. No.499 of 2009 The defendant is in Regular Second Appeal against the judgments and decrees dated 18.1.2008 and 20.9.2008 passed respectively by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') and the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana (for short `the first appellate Court'), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was decreed and the appeal of the defendant /appellant was dismissed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit by alleging that the property, as fully detailed in headnote of the suit, was joint and that one motor/ tubewell connection was also got installed there in the name of defendant for irrigating the land and according to the Rules R.S.A. No.499 of 2009 -2- of the P.S.E.B., because the said connection had to be installed in the name of one joint owners, the same was jointly used by the parties. It was alleged that the appellant is seeking to change the nature of the suit property as also to intent upon using the same. The defendant/appellant pleaded partition, but after filing the written statement, he did not adduce any evidence. He also did not appear in the witness box. The following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff suppressed material facts, if so its effect?OPP. 3. Whether the suit land was orally partitioned in the year 1980 between the parties. OPD. 4. Relief. Both the Courts decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent by holding that that partition as set up by the appellant in his written statement, did not stand proved and the status of the property was joint. Decree was passed restraining the defendant/appellant from changing the existing position of any specific portion/part of more than his share out of the suit property. Aggrieved by the said findings, the instant Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant/appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the motor and the electric connection for the tubewell was obtained R.S.A. No.499 of 2009 -3- by the appellant from his own funds, which falls in his share. This fact has also been admitted by the plaintiff/respondent in his cross- examination. Therefore, his right could not be interfered with. He thus contends that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. The contention so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no consequence as the controversy involved in the suit was that the appellant was sought to be restrained from changing the nature of suit property or to alienate the same. The appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that the property has been partitioned, leaving the Court with no other option except to decree the suit of the plaintiff. Perusal of the impugned judgments did not reveal any infirmity in the absence of any evidence from where the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent could be offset. The findings recorded by the both the courts below cannot be termed to be incorrect so as to warrant interference in the Regular Second Appeal when no substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen therein. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 2nd March, 2010 (MAHESH GROVER) Monika JUDGE