Regular Second Appeal No.2968 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2968 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.9.2011 Satya Bhama & Ors. ...Appellants Versus Smt.Kalawati Devi & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not ? 2. The contour of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Chet Ram son of Kirpa Ram, was the owner of land in dispute. He alongwith Jawahar and Raje Ram was stated to have mortgaged his property with the fore-fathers of plaintiffs for a consideration of ` 6200/- in the year 1922. The writing to that effect was entered into the Bahi of Shiv Lal on 12.8.1922 at the time of delivery of possession of mortgaged land. It was alleged that the corresponding entry was also made in the Bahi of Chet Ram. It was explained that Jawahar and Raje Ram got redeemed their respective shares in the land, whereas the land of share of Chet Ram remained in possession of fore-fathers of the plaintiffs. Regular Second Appeal No.2968 of 2008 (O&M) -2- 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the original plaintiffs that since Chet Ram did not redeem his share, so, they, being the grand children of the original mortgagee, became the absolute owners and in possession of the suit land. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the original plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that they became the owners and in possession of the mortgaged property in dispute of the share of Chet Ram and the defendants have left with no right, title and interest in it, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 4. The defendants contested the suit and filed their joint written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, limitation, jurisdiction, non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. On merits, it was vehemently denied that Chet Ram, fore-father of the defendants, ever mortgaged his land with the fore-fathers of the plaintiffs. The writing and the Bahi entry were stated to be forged and fabricated. They (defendants) are the owners and in possession of the disputed property. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings contained in the plaint, the original plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case. 6. The parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to prove their respective pleaded cases. 7. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 5.6.2004. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, through the Regular Second Appeal No.2968 of 2008 (O&M) -3- medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 23.10.2007. 9. The appellants (LRs of deceased plaintiffs) still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees and preferred the present regular second appeal. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 11. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since it stands proved on record that Chet Ram did not get his share in the land in dispute redeemed, so, the original plaintiffs became its owners, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 12. As is evident from the record that having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, has recorded a finding of fact that the original plaintiffs had miserably failed to prove the alleged mortgage as well as to establish the identity of the mortgaged property. 13. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Ist Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment dated 23.10.2007, which, in substance, is (para 12) as under:- “It is a settled provision of law that plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Plaintiff has to sink or swim on the strength of his own evidence. He cannot take advantage of the weakness of the defendant case. He has to prove his case by producing cogent and convincing evidence. But in the present case evidence led by plaintiff is completely lacking to substantiate their plea. According to Bahi entry Ex.P1 Chet Ram S/o Kirpa Ram mortgaged his land for a consideration of Rs.6200/-. Bahi entry Ex.P2 was written at that time. In the absence of any corroborative entry in the revenue record there is no description of land given in the entry Ex.P1 to further connect with the suit land. Only detail described in Ex.P1 is that 204 bighas land was mortgaged. No further description of land like Khewat, Khasra, Khatoni have been mentioned in Ex.P1. In the absence of Regular Second Appeal No.2968 of 2008 (O&M) -4- any revenue record factum of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land also not proved.” 14. Moreover, the suit filed by the original plaintiffs was not maintainable, in view of the laid down by a Full Bench of this Court in case Ram Kishan and others v. Sheo Ram and others 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 334. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant direction. 16. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, they have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at in this regard. 17. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings in the impugned judgments and decrees. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf, in this relevant behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 18. Sequelly, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh's case Regular Second Appeal No.2968 of 2008 (O&M) -5- (supra) in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 19. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 20. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 19.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No