R.S.A. No. 1310 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1310 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.3.2009 Virro Devi and another ...Appellants. Versus Balla Ram ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate for the appellants. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009 passed by the first appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 12.9.2006 whereby the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction was decreed. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering and taking forcible possession of the land comprised in khewat No. 294, khatauni Nos. 597, 663, khasra Nos. 138//18/1M (1-8), 138//19 (4-0) situated in village Ghagga, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”) from him. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had purchased the land comprised in khasra No. 138//19 (4- 0) and was in possession of the same. The remaining land was also in R.S.A. No. 1310 of 2009 -2- his possession and he had constructed two rooms in khasra No. 138//18/1M which were being used for storing chaff and agriculture produce and the remaining open space was under cultivation. It was further pleaded that his possession over the suit land was peaceful, actual and physical and the defendants were strangers and had got no right, title or interest in the same. The defendants without any right and authority threatened to take forcibly possession or to interfere in the possession of the plaintiff wrongly and illegally which gave rise to the filing of the suit for permanent injunction. To controvert the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a joint written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had not purchased the suit land and the Cooperative Society Harijan Village Ghagga was owner in possession of the same. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff under the garb of the suit wanted to take forcibly possession from the defendants of the land comprised in khasra No. 138//18/2 (0-16) regarding which a suit titled as “Verro Devi vs. Bala Ram” was filed and interim order of stay had been confirmed by the civil court. The defendants besides denying the other averments, made a prayer for dismissal of the suit. The trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land and, therefore, was entitled to a decree for permanent injunction. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.9.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from interfering in any manner in the suit land except in due course of law. R.S.A. No. 1310 of 2009 -3- Feeling aggrieved, the defendants approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 28.1.2009 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has made an attempt to persuade this Court to reappreciate the evidence led by the parties before the trial court so as to differ with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below, but the same is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The courts below had recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the suit land. Further, it was held that both the properties claimed by the plaintiff and the defendants were two different properties and as such could not be mixed up. Moreover, the revenue record showed the possession of defendant No.1 over khasra No. 138//18/2 min which was not part of the suit land. No misreading of any evidence on record by the courts below has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellants warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. March 25, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE