R.S.A. No. 5859 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 5859 of 2003 Date of Decision: 9.12.2008 Swaran Kaur ...Appellant. Versus Kuldip Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this regular second appeal filed by the defendant, challenge is to the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2003 passed by the first appellate court, affirming that of the trial court dated 22.1.2001 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed. Adumbrated, the facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property, fully described in head-note of the plaint, situated at village Jagpalpur, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. The portion shown in red colour in the site plan being part and parcel of the property was also under his ownership. It was pleaded that two spouts (parnalas), one window and three ventilators were opening towards the red portion of the suit property for fresh air and light and that the defendant had no right, title or interest in the same. It was further pleaded that the suit property was ancestral one and the share of each shareholder had been divided. According to the plaintiff, the defendant tried to raise R.S.A. No. 5859 of 2003 -2- construction in the portion shown in red colour with a view to obstruct the light and air through the aforesaid windows and ventilators, illegally. The plaintiff requested the defendant many a times not to do so but to no avail and that gave rise to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction. To controvert the stand of the plaintiff, the defendant filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit property but the portion shown in red colour in the site plan was not part and parcel of the plaintiff's house, in fact, it was in possession of the defendant who had installed electric meter No. RF82 0288F in the name of her son. It was further pleaded that the defendant had already filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff, his brother and father in which the order of status quo had been passed in her favour. According to the defendant, she was owner in possession of the property shown in the red colour and could use the same in any manner she liked and the plaintiff had no right to stop her from raising construction thereon. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 22.1.2001 holding that the plaintiff had proved his case and was entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the trial court restrained the defendant from raising construction over the property shown in red colour in the site plan, R.S.A. No. 5859 of 2003 -3- Ex.P1, forcibly. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed an appeal before the lower appellate court which, vide judgment and decree dated 14.10.2003 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and 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 made efforts to persuade this Court to come to a different conclusion but could not show any material on the basis of which it could be held that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any misreading or misappreciation of evidence which may warrant interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The trial court had returned a finding of fact that both - the plaintiff and the defendant - had failed to prove their ownership of the portion of the land shown in red colour in the site plan by leading any documentary evidence but from the oral evidence available on record, it was proved that the said portion was being used by the plaintiff by way of opening window and ventilators and by the defendant it was being used as a passage. The aforesaid finding of the trial court was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this 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. December 9, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE