R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.11.2008 Pohlo Ram ...Appellant. Versus Sita Devi and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for the appellant. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Having failed before the courts below, one of the plaintiffs, namely, Pohlo Ram, has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 passed by the lower appellate court, affirming that of the trial court dated 22.4.2005 vide which the suit of the plaintiffs for possession and permanent injunction, was dismissed. Earlier, the present suit was decided by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.8.2003 holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of possession. On appeal, the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2004 remanded the case to the trial court with the direction to decide the same afresh after appointing a R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2008 -2- Local Commissioner as per the instructions of the Financial Commissioner and the High Court Rules and Orders. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the plot measuring 4 Marlas 6 Sarsahis, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, after removing the fire woods and the bricks stored there by the defendants illegally and forcibly; and as a consequential relief a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any sort of construction over the suit land was also sought. It was pleaded that Chuni Ram, father of plaintiff No.1, was owner of the plot measuring 1 Kanal 8 Marlas including the suit land which was purchased by him in an open auction from the Central Government on 1.10.1955 and since then he had been in possession of the same. After the death of said Chuni Ram, the plaintiffs had become owners in possession of the suit land which was within 'Lal Lakir' and constructed their respective houses. It was further pleaded that in December, 1997, the defendants took the possession of the suit land illegally and forcibly and on 21.12.1999, on demarcation, it was found that the defendants were in illegal possession of the suit land which was under the ownership of the plaintiffs. The defendants being strong headed persons threatened to raise illegal construction overthere which gave rise to the filing of the suit as mentioned above. Upon notice, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit land was never allotted to Chuni Ram and before the partition of the country, the defendants and their fore-fathers were in possession of the same as its absolute owners. It was further pleaded that neither the father of the R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2008 -3- plaintiffs entered into possession nor the plaintiffs ever remained in possession of the suit land and and since the suit land fell within the 'Lal Lakir' of the village, the defendants were not bound by any demarcation and they had every right to raise construction on the same. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2005, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that since they had failed to establish that the defendants have encroached upon the suit land, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the possession of the suit land. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff No.1 took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2008 while affirming the findings of the trial court, dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant raised almost the same grounds to establish the case of the plaintiffs as had been ventilated before the courts below, but he has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The trial court had recorded a finding that the report, Ex.PW6/1, of the local commissioner appointed after remand of the case no where suggested that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the suit land. Further, it was concurrently recorded by the courts below that no evidence was led by the plaintiffs to prove that the suit property was encroached upon by R.S.A. No. 3673 of 2008 -4- the defendants illegally and forcibly in the year 1997. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this second appeal for determination of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. November 14, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE