R.S.A. No.3508 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.3508 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.3.2009 Ranjeet Kaur & others ....Appellants Versus Harbinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is plaintiffs' second appeal directed against the judgments of the learned trial Court dated 17.5.2005 and the first Appellate Court dated 11.6.2007. The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely Sukhdev Singh had filed the suit for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining respondent No.1 Harbinder Singh from interfering in the peaceful ownership, possession and usage of one electric motor which was installed in his fields. It was his pleaded case that he was owner in possession of 50 bighas of agricultural land and about 6/7 years back he had applied for an electric motor connection with the Punjab State Electricity Board under a particular R.S.A. No.3508 of 2007 (O&M) -2- scheme launched by the Electricity Board by which three phase motor connections were sanctioned/installed against the foreign currency and after completion of all the formalities for it, the Board sanctioned and installed the same in the name of Sukhdev Singh in the year 1994 and he had been using the same for agricultural purposes. It was further the case of plaintiff Sukhdev Singh that respondent No.1, who was his son and living separately from him since many years had no concern with him and neither had he any concern with the land in which the electric motor was installed. It was thus prayed that the respondent should be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. The notice of the suit was given and the same was contested by respondent No.1, who pleaded that Gurdial Singh son of Jaimal Singh was father of plaintiff Sukhdev Singh, who was owner to the extent of ½ share out of the land measuring 138 bighas 13 biswas which land was inherited by the plaintiff and his brothers Baldev Singh and Gamdoor Singh in equal shares being ancestral land and the share of plaintiff came to 1/6th out of land measuring 138 bighas 13 biswas. It was pleaded that the said land was partitioned amongst them in a family settlement in the year 1973 and that there were two electric motors each of 5 HP in Khasra No.265 in the name of respondent No.1 and in the year 1977 the plaintiff partitioned his land measuring 48 bighas 8 biswas amongst his two sons, namely respondent No.1 and Ravinder Singh and 16 bighas 2-1/2 biswas each was given. Along with this land electric motor connection was given to respondent No.1 by way of sale and a specific affidavit was R.S.A. No.3508 of 2007 (O&M) -3- executed to that effect before the Electricity Board on the basis of which connection was transferred in the name of respondent No.1. The officials of the electricity department, who were also arrayed as defendants in the suit broadly supported the averments made by respondent No.1. The parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of electric motor account No.BH-179 installed in Khasra No.265/3-18?OPP 2. Whether plaintiff has given disputed motor in family partition to defendant no.1 and executed affidavit to that effect? If so, its effect?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD 4. Relief. On the basis of evidence the Courts below concluded that the deceased Sukhdev Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had voluntarily suffered an affidavit in favour of respondent No.1 agreeing to transfer the electric connection and on the basis of which legal formalities had been completed and the connection was changed in the name of respondent No.1. Assailing the aforesaid findings, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the same are pervrse and are liable to be set aside as there is a complete misreading of evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Both the Courts below have concluded on the basis of R.S.A. No.3508 of 2007 (O&M) -4- affidavit Ex.DW3/A that deceased Sukhdev Singh, the predecessor- in-interest of the appellants, had sold the connection to respondent No.1 after receiving the amount as well as security at the time of family partition of the land. On the basis of said affidavit the electric connection was changed in favour of respondent No.1 by the Electricity Board after following due procedure of law. The number of electricity connection was also changed from BH-179 to BH-184 and that the bills were being paid by respondent No.1. There is no evidence worth the name which has been shown to this Court by the learned counsel for the appellants on the basis of which a conclusion could be arrived at, that some evidence has been misread, so as to observe that the findings of the Courts below were perverse. Pure findings of facts have been returned by the Courts below and no substantial question of law arises for determination of this Court. Consequently, the appeal being totally devoid of any merit is dismissed. 6.3.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss