Regular Second Appeal No.3718 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3718 of 2003 Date of decision: March 18, 2008 Bawa Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Jit Singh …..RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Ms Puneeta Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr Padam Jain, Advocate for the respondent. T.P.S.MANN, J. The appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain Jit Singh respondent and his brother Jagir Singh from dispossessing him from the plot in suit, measuring about 15 marlas in area, situated in the abadi of village Biharipur or from interfering in his possession in any manner whatsoever, illegally and forcibly. Jit Singh respondent also filed a suit for permanent injunction so as to restrain appellant-Bawa Singh and his sons Sheera Singh and Mohan Singh, besides their helpers from interfering in his peaceful possession of the plot, measuring 8 marlas, situated in the abadi of village Biharipur or dispossessing him and raising any construction over the said plot Regular Second Appeal No.3718 of 2003 2 illegally, wrongly and forcibly. Both the suits were tried independently, but simultaneously by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, who, vide judgment dated May 3, 2000, dismissed the suit of Bawa Singh appellant and decreed that of Jit Singh respondent. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant filed two separate appeals which were heard and dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala on 20.3.2003. The appellant has now moved this Court by filing present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit filed by him and also R.S.A No.3719 of 2003 in the suit filed by Jit Singh respondent. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment. The appellant had earlier filed a suit for possession of 1/6th share of a plot, measuring 7 marlas. Jagat Singh and Sudagar Singh were arraigned as defendants. Jagat Singh was none else but father of Jit Singh respondent. The appellant had also sought a decree for 5/6th share of the plot in question on conditional payment of Rs.2500/- and consequently, its possession by way of pre-emption. The suit was decreed in entirety by the trial Court and the appeal of Jagat Singh and Sudagar Singh was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Both Jagat Singh and Sudagar then filed R.S.A No.248 of 1972, which was accepted regarding 5/6th share and dismissed qua 1/6th share. Thus, Bawa Singh was granted decree for possession of 1/6th share, in the plot measuring 7 Regular Second Appeal No.3718 of 2003 3 marlas. The decision of the High Court in R.S.A No.248 of 1972 on September 26, 1975, was never challenged further by the appellant and, thus, it attained finality. It is an admitted fact that inspite of the High Court decreeing the suit of Bawa Singh for possession of 1/6th share, the decree was never executed. Thus, Jagat Singh etc. remained in possession of 1/6th share of the plot in question as well. More than 20 years later, the appellant filed the suit under the present appeal against Jit Singh son of Jagat Singh qua the same property, but he made no mention of the earlier litigation, which he lost in the High Court, although he was granted relief in respect of 1/6th share, but even that part of the decree remained unexecuted. The appellant and his witnesses have also admitted the possession of the respondent over the plot measuring 8 marlas. The dispute remains in respect of 7 marlas. Even if it is taken that the appellant is in possession, he cannot seek an order of injunction as neither the length and breadth of the plot have been clarified nor any attempt made to bring demarcation report on the record. So much so that no document of title was produced. In view of the above, no case is made out for disturbing the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned lower Courts. These findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Regular Second Appeal No.3718 of 2003 4 No such substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant in both the appeals, arise for determination. Resultantly, the two appeals are dismissed. March 18, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE Regular Second Appeal No.3718 of 2003 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3719 of 2003 Date of decision: March 18, 2008 Bawa Singh …..APPELLANT Versus Jit Singh and Another …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN PRESENT: Ms Puneeta Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr Padam Jain, Advocate for the respondents. T.P.S.MANN, J. For orders, see R.S.A No. 3718 of 2003 decided by an order of the even date. March 18, 2008 (T.P.S.MANN) Pds. JUDGE