RSA No.2993 of 1987 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2993 of 1987 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.4.2010 Kulwant Rai and others ............ Appellants Versus Lakhvinder Singh and others .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Pardip Bhandari, Advocate Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) RSA No.2993 of 1987 (O&M) -2- 1. Present second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs/appellants assailing judgment and decree dated 7.10.1986 passed by learned trial Court dismissing suit of the plaintiffs and judgment/decree dated 21.7.1987 passed by learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, Patiala, whereby dismissing the first appeal of the plaintiffs. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs either by making encroachment or raising any construction over the property in dispute as fully described in the body of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, they are the owners in possession of the property in dispute and property in dispute is being used for storing cow dung cakes and for storing wood etc. for the last more than 35/40 years. 3. Defendant No.1 did not contest the suit. However, defendants No.2 and 3 refuted the claims of the plaintiffs and contested the suit. 4. Learned trial Court has recorded clear cut finding of fact on issue No.1 that plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are permanent resident of Village Bhadson and are owners in possession of the property in dispute. 5. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs preferred first appeal. In the appeal, learned first Appellate Court also recorded finding of fact that plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and possession over the property in dispute. RSA No.2993 of 1987 (O&M) -3- 6. On issue No.1, both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiffs have failed to prove their ownership and possession over the property in dispute. In the second appeal, this Court ordinarily can not disturb findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below in the absence of any substantial question of law. To maintain the second appeal, formulation of substantial question of law is sine qua non:- As to whether plaintiffs are owners in possession of the property in dispute is a question of fact. 7. In view of the above, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. 8. The present second appeal is devoid of merit. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ALOK SINGH ) 01st April, 2010 JUDGE ashish