RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 5, 2011 Bikramjit Singh .....Appellant v. Mahabir Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Sandeep Singh Deol, Advocate for the appellant. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.10128-129-C of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures A1 to A6. Same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. RSA No.3583 of 2011 Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 6.6.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned trial Court dismissing suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated the case of appellant-plaintiff is that there was an electricity connection in the name of respondent-defendant in his fields and, however, as his tubewell was not working, an agreement by way of a RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M) -2- writing on a non-stamp paper was entered between both the parties, vide which respondent-defendant agreed to use the said electricity connection on the tubewell installed in the land of appellant-plaintiff and for that respondent-defendant agreed that 2/3rd share in the usage of water would be of appellant-plaintiff and 1/3rd would be of respondent-defendant. Suit was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed by learned first appellate Court was also dismissed. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that respondent-defendant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement and that now he has raised threat that he will not allow him to use 2/3rd share in the usage of water of the tubewell. However, in this case as per own admission of appellant-plaintiff, the electricity connection, which is in the name of respondent-defendant has not been shifted by Punjab State Electricity Board to the tubewell installed in the land of present appellant-plaintiff. It has also come on the record that said connection is still working in the tubewell installed in the land of respondent-defendant. It has also been observed by learned first appellate Court that it is not believable that a person would like to relinquish 2/3rd share in the usage of water just for the purpose of repairing the tubewell. Both the Courts have also held that appellant-plaintiff has failed to satisfactory prove execution of alleged agreement, Ex.P1. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the learned Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on RSA No.3583 of 2011(O&M) -3- misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 5.9.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge