RSA No.4014/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4014/2011 Date of decision: 04.10.2011. Mangat Ram and others ....................Appellants v. Jagdish Rai .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.GS Kaura,Advocate for the appellants. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) This order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 4014 and 4016 of 2011 as common questions of facts and law are involved in these appeals arising out of judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below whereby suit filed by Jagdish Rai-plaintiff (respondent herein) was partly decreed by the trial court and the appeal filed by him was also accepted by the appellate court and the cross appeal filed by Mangat Ram-defendant (appellant herein) was dismissed. However, facts are being noticed from RSA No.4014/2011. Briefly noticed the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Jagdish Rai-plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit for permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act against the RSA No.4014/2011 2 appellants/defendants-Mangat Ram etc. alleging that he is owner in possession of shop bearing Municipal Unit No.818/1, situated in Ward No.3, Gurudwara Road, Ellenabad. It was further alleged that previously, appellant-Mangat Ram has filed Civil Suit No.585/1993 titled as Mangat Ram vs. Madan Lal etc., and in that suit respondent- Jagdish Rai was defendant no.14 and defendants 2 and 3 namely Shanti Bhushan and Tripurari Sharma were also party to that suit. In the said suit defendant Madan Lal under issue no.3 claimed that decree dated 8.1.1992 in civil suit no.1664/1991 was illegal and null. In issue no.4, the sale deed dated 17.11.1993 in favour of Jagdish Rai, plaintiff (respondent) was sought to be declared as null and void. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgement and decree dated 22.1.2002 decided both the issues against Mangat Ram (appellant herein) and the decree dated 8.1.1992 and sale deed dated 17.11.1993 in favour of Jagdish Rai, plaintiff (respondent herein) were held to be valid. Respondent no.1-Shanti Bhushan preferred first appeal against the said judgement and decree dated 22.1.2002 which was dismissed on 2.4.2005 by the then learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. Thereafter Mangat Ram (appellant herein) challenged the said judgements and decrees before this Court as well as beofre Hon'ble Apex Court but failed and Jagdish Rai-respondent herein was held to be owner in possession of the suit property measuring 9' x 55' including stair case in Unit No.818/1 right uptill Hon'ble Apex Court. Since the shop in question was very old and some portion of it RSA No.4014/2011 3 was in dilapidated condition-respondent Jagdish Rai started demolishing the shop for reconstruction and doing major repair of some portion but the appellant/defendants duly armed with lathies reached at the spot on 11.4.2005 and threatened the plaintiff- respondent herein not to demolish the shop or carry out the construction work/make any repair. Since the application moved by the plaintiff-respondent Jagdish Rai to SHO, DSP and SDM Ellenabad bore no fruit, he filed the present suit under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act against the defendant(appellant herein). Upon notice, defendants/appellants herein filed reply denying the claim of the plaintiff/respondent herein that he was owner of Municipal Unit No.818/1.The defendants/appellants herein claimed themselves to be owners of one shop bearing Unit no.819 (18' x 55') and 818/1 unit which is allegedly part and parcel of unit no.819. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both sides led evidence. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court vide judgement and decree dated 28.4.2011 partly decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff had a right to restrain the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the shop in dispute (No.818/1)measuring 5'5” x 55'. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgement and decree of the trial court, both sides filed appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide judgement and decree dated 22.9.2011 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Mangat Ram whereas the appeal filed by RSA No.4014/2011 4 Jagdish Rai-respondent herein was accepted and the order dated 28.4.2011 passed by learned trial court was modified to the extent that defendant was restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the shop in dispute measuring 9' x 55' instead of 5' x 55'. It is against this order that the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by defendant Mangat Ram. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that plaintiff has been held to be owner in possession of shop bearing Municipal Unit No.818/1 and the issue regarding ownership stands decided in favour of plaintiff right upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any question of law, much less any substantial question of law involved in both the appeals which may require determination by this Court. Dismissed. 04.10.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge