R. S. A. No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 24, 2010 Dharam Pal .... Appellant Vs. Dhanno Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Inder Mohan Parihar, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 6349-C of 2010 : For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal : Plaintiff Dharam Pal, having remained partly successful and partly unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Appellant-plaintiff filed suit alleging that he is in possession of the suit house depicted by letters EFGH in the site plan since partition of the R. S. A. No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 2 country. He also alleged that suit plot depicted by letters ABCD in the plan is owned by Punjab Wakf Board and is in possession of the plaintiff as tenant. The defendants, however, threatened to encroach upon the suit properties. Consequently, plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner in possession of the plaintiff on suit properties and from encroaching upon any part thereof. The defendants contested the suit and denied the plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiff is tenant over the suit properties under the Punjab Wakf Board. Defendant no.1 claimed himself to be tenant on plot measuring 675 sq. yds. under Punjab Wakf Board. Disputed plot depicted by letters ABCD is part of plot, which is in possession of defendant no.1 as tenant. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot, vide judgment and decree dated 12.01.1996, partly decreed the plaintiff's suit restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the plot depicted by letters ABCD in site plan Ex.P-2, but dismissed the suit regarding the house or the plot depicted by letters EFGH in site plan Ex.P-2. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the R. S. A. No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 3 case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in original decree dated 12.01.1996, plaintiff's suit was depicted to have been decreed in toto, but the said decree was amended vide order dated 15.03.1996 to depict that plaintiff's suit was decreed regarding plot shown by letters ABCD and was dismissed regarding the house or the plot shown by letters EFGH in site plan and the said change was made without notice to plaintiff- appellant. The contention cannot be accepted as the aforesaid correction in the decree sheet was made after issuing notice to counsel for the plaintiff- appellant in the trial court. Even otherwise, decree has to be according to the judgment. If the decree was inadvertently framed contrary to the judgment, the same had to be corrected. It is not the case of the appellant that even judgment was corrected. On the other hand, the judgment admittedly recorded that the suit of the plaintiff was decreed regarding plot ABCD and was dismissed regarding plot EFGH depicted in the site plan Ex.P-2. Consequently, the decree also had to be to the same effect. The aforesaid contention is, therefore, completely meritless. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts below and the said finding is based on appreciation of evidence. The plaintiff led evidence regarding his tenancy over plot ABCD, but failed to lead cogent evidence regarding plot/house EFGH. Finding of the courts below is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or R. S. A. No. 2084 of 2010 (O&M) 4 illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. Lower appellate court is the final court of fact. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine being without any merit. August 24, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE