RSA No.129 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.129 of 1988 Date of decision: 12.5.2010 Ram Sarup (died) through LRs and others ............Appellants Versus Dariya and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This second appeal is filed by the plaintiffs/appellants assailing judgment and decree dated 20.4.1987 passed by the learned trial Court/Sub Judge- Ist Class, Rohtak and judgment and decree dated 16.10.1987 passed by learned first Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, Rohtak. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs/appellants filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the RSA No.129 of 1988 -2- defendants from intervening in possession of plaintiffs over suit plot measuring 662 sq. yards as per the boundaries as stated in para No.1 of the plaint. 3. In brief, the plaintiffs/appellants’ case is that plaintiffs/appellants has purchased the suit plot vide registered sale deed dated 30.7.1958; suit plot measuring 662 sq. yards is comprised in Killa No.67/6 of revenue estate of village Rurkee, Tehsil and District Rohtak. 4. Defendants contested the suit. The main defence of the defendants is that suit property is comprised in Killa No.67/7/1; previously this property was owned and possessed by one Maya Chand, from whom father of the defendants had got this property in exchange for his other property; since then the property is continuing in possession of the contesting defendants. 5. Both the Courts below on the issue of ownership have recorded concurrent finding of fact that plaintiffs could not prove their ownership and possession over the property in dispute. 6. Finding on the question of ownership is a finding of fact, which can not be lightly disturbed under Section 100 C.P.C. in the second appeal. Even if two views are possible, concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below should not be disturbed until and unless some perversity or illegality is pointed out in the findings recorded by the Courts below. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that both the Courts below have not considered the sale deed dated RSA No.129 of 1988 -3- 30.7.1958. 8. I have gone through the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact that property in dispute is a part of Khasra No.67/6/1 and not a part of 67/6. Both the Courts below further observed that plaintiffs have not derived any title vide sale deed dated 30.7.1958 and could not prove that vendor of sale deed dated 30.7.1958, was the owner of the property, in dispute. No perversity or illegality is pointed out by learned Counsel for the appellants. 9. Hence, appeal is devoid of merit, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ALOK SINGH ) 12th May, 2010 JUDGE ashish