RSA No.650 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.650 of 2010 Date of Decision:24.08.2010 Subhash Chand .……Appellant Versus Smt. Kushal Rani and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is second appeal by Subhash Chand one of the legal representative of original plaintiff-Prem Chand since deceased, having lost in both the Courts below. Prem Chand filed suit against respondent Nos.1 to 31 (including legal representatives of some of the original defendants) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiff over suit land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas and a house in khasra No.54/2 shown in site plan Annexure A. Defendants do not claim any right, title or interest in the said part of the suit property i.e 12 kanals 4 marlas land and house shown in plan Annexure A. The plaintiff also, however, sought injunction regarding other Abadi land measuring 2 kanals out of Abadi khasra No.54/2 as shown in site plans Annexures B and C attached with the plaint alleging that he is in possession thereof and the said land is being used by him for tethering cattle, garbage etc. The defendants have no concern with the same. Defendants inter alia pleaded that plaintiff is resident of a RSA No.650 of 2010 -2- different village and his maternal ancestors have no right or title in the suit property. It was denied that plaintiff is in possession of the land shown in site plans Annexures B and C. The plaintiff has no concern with the said land or the other suit property i.e 12 kanals 4 marlas land and the house shown in site plan Annexure A. It was also alleged that land shown in site plans Annexures B and C is owned and possessed by the defendants. Their two huts also exist therein. They also tethered cattle therein and have constructed mangers for the same. Site plan Annexure B is not correct. Various other pleas were also raised. During the course of trial and in the written statement, defendants did not claim any right, title or interest in land measuring 12 kanals 4 marlas or in the house depicted in site plan Annexure A. Consequently, the dispute remains regarding the land depicted in site plans Annexures B and C, which was claimed by the defendants to be owned and possessed by them. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula vide judgment and decree 13.08.2007 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and decree dated 10.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. There is concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below that plaintiff is not proved to be in possession of the land depicted in site plans Annexures B and C. The said finding is based RSA No.650 of 2010 -3- on proper appreciation of evidence and is not shown to be perverse or illegal and, therefore, does not warrant interference in second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that land of khasra No.21//16 owned and possessed by the plaintiff adjoins Abadi land of khasra No.54/2 measuring 85 kanals 12 marlas and the land depicted in site plans Annexures B and C is part of Abadi land adjoining the land of khasra No.21//16 of the plaintiff and is in possession of the plaintiff. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Mere fact that plaintiff's land of khasra No.21//16 touches the abadi land would not by itself depict that plaintiff is in possession of part of the Abadi land depicted in site plans Annexures B and C. The said land has not been connected with the revenue record to depict that plaintiff is in possession thereof. Lower appellate Court is the final Court of fact. Evidence is not required to be appreciated again in second appeal. Even otherwise, in the instant case, concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below is based on appreciation of evidence and, therefore, cannot be interfered with in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The case is entirely based on finding of fact. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 24.08.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE