IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2319 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.3.2010 Lala Ram and others ....Appellants Versus Jagdish Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the respondents. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first Appellate Court dated 24.2.2006 by which the findings recorded by the learned trial Court were reversed. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction and described the suit property as his house by its location and surroundings. He has also relied upon a site plan and pleaded that he was owner in possession of the property. The learned trial court dismissed the suit while in appeal the findings were reversed and the suit was decreed. The defendants, who have filed this appeal, are questioning the said judgment on the ground that there is no material R.S.A.No.2319 of 2006 (O&M) -2- to show that the respondent-plaintiff was in possession of the property. However, the contention of the appellants is without any force as their own witnesses namely, DW1 Khichu Ram and DW2 Harender Kumar testified that the site plan which was appended to the plaint was correct and DW2 also admitted that the boundaries of the house as stated by DW1 Khichu Ram are correct. All this was recorded in their cross-examination wherein they also established the location of the house of the plaintiff-respondents by way of its surroundings which tallied with the one set up by the plaintiff- respondents. In this view of the matter when purely a question of fact has been recorded by the Court below, no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court. The present appeal is totally without any merit and is dismissed. 2.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss