RSA No. 4124 of 2009(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4124 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision:September 14, 2010 Madan Lal --Appellant versus Basant Singh and another ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This second appeal has been preferred by Madan Lal, appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 19.3.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by this plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 10.6.2008 passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Bathinda, vide which he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession and from taking forcible possession of the plot in dispute situated in Prajapat Colony, Bathinda, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. RSA No. 4124 of 2009(O&M) -2- The plaintiff pleaded in his plaint that he along with Savitri Devi and others purchased land measuring 12416 square yards, situated in the above said colony, which also included the plot in dispute. Plots were carved out from that land after leaving the streets and the plot in dispute fell to his share and he became exclusive owner thereof and is coming in exclusive possession. He filled up the foundations in this plot and also raised level thereof by putting loose soil. The defendants have no concern with his plot but being the influential persons, they are threatening to interfere in his possession by taking forcible possession. Therefore, he filed suit for permanent injunction. The suit was contested by the defendants, who filed independent written statements in which they denied the contentions of the plaintiff. They pleaded that Savitri Devi-plaintiff and others had specific share in the land measuring 12416 square yards and the plaintiff has already sold his share in the land. One of the co-sharer, Girdhari Lal, sold plot measuring 200 square yards to Jaswant Singh on 15.11.1971 and that plot was further purchased by defendant No. 2, who is the father of defendant No. 1. that defendant is coming in possession of that plot since the date of sale deed i.e. 19.11.1974. On the pleadings of the parties, following issued were framed:- 1.Whether the plaintiff purchased the land vide registered sale deed? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is owner and in exclusive possession of the suit property? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for? OPP RSA No. 4124 of 2009(O&M) -3- 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action?OPD 5. Whether the defendant No. 2 has purchased the suit land vide registered sale deed dated 19.11.1974?OPD 6. Relief. On the basis of the evidence so produced and after hearing counsel for both the sides, all the issues were decided against the plaintiff and resultantly his suit was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has failed to satisfy this Court that any substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Concurrent findings were recorded by the trial court and the First Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties. It cannot be concluded that those findings are based on no evidence or misreading of evidence nor it can be said that those findings suffers from absolute perversity. In view of the fact that no substantial question of law arises in this second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE September 14, 2010 PARAMJIT