Regular Second Appeal Noa.3968 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.7.2010 Mohinder Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Lakhwinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. This regular second appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.9.2005, whereby, the trial Court has dismissed the suit, filed by Mohinder Singh and his son Shangara Singh, appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”), for a decree of permanent injunction restraining Lakhwinder Singh son of Ajit Singh, respondent-defendant (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendant”) from interfering into their possession and forcibly dispossessing them from the house in dispute. The plaintiffs have also challenged the judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009, vide which, their appeal was dismissed as well by the Ist Appellate Court. 2. Tersenessly, the bare minimum facts, that need a necessary mention, for disposal of the present appeal and emanating from the record, are that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, inter-alia, pleading that the father of plaintiff No.1 was owner and in possession of the house in dispute for the last 50/60 years and after his death, the plaintiffs inherited and are owners as well as in possession of the same for the last about 15 years ago, but the defendant is threatening to illegally oust them without any legal right. On the basis of the ownership and possession, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner indicated here-in-above. Regular Second Appeal Noa.3968 of 2009 2 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the plaintiffs and estoppel etc. On merits, the case set up by the defendant was that originally, the suit property was owned and possessed by one Massa Singh son of Mehanga Singh, who had sold the same, vide agreement dated 23.12.1993 for a consideration of Rs.4000/- and delivered its vacant possession to him (defendant). Since then, he is owner and in possession of the property in dispute. He has constructed one temporary thatched roof (chownks), planted the trees and installed a hand pump in it. The shop of the defendant was stated to be situated on the northern side of the disputed portion. The defendant has denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. 5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. 6. The parties brought on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleas. 7. The trial Court, on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, Regular Second Appeal Noa.3968 of 2009 3 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.9.2005. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009. 9. The appellants (plaintiffs) still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in this appeal. 11. However, the main routine argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the Courts below have wrongly appreciated the evidence on record, while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well. It is not a matter of dispute that the plaintiffs have sought injunction on the ground of their ownership and possession over the disputed property. In that eventuality, the burden of proof was on them and it was for the plaintiffs to prove their ownership and possession by producing cogent evidence on record. Admittedly, no document of title to prove their ownership has been brought on record by them. They have only produced on record the oral evidence in this respect. Keeping in view the inherent contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of the plaintiffs, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. On the contrary, the defendant has produced on record the agreement to sell (Ex.D1) in his favour and site plan (Ex.D2), depicting his possession over the suit property. The other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellants (plaintiffs), have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant connection. Regular Second Appeal Noa.3968 of 2009 4 12. 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, the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove their ownership and possession over the disputed property and thus not entitled to any relief in this regard. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the 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 the well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 13. Meaning thereby, the entire case 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 in the second appeal, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case . 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 15. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 7.7.2010 Judge AS