IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 523 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.2.2010 Holla Ram. ....... Appellant. Versus Dhan Sat Guru Education Society, Gohana. ....... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present: Shri N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant. .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. C.M.No.1479-C of 2010 The application is allowed and the delay of 238 days in refiling of the appeal is condoned. C.M.No.1480-C of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. R.S.A.No.523 of 2010 & C.M.No.1481-C of 2010 This Regular Second Appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 6.4.2007 and 28.2.2009 passed respectively by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohala (hereinafter described as `the trial R.S.A.No.523 of 2010 (O&M) -2- .... Court') and the Additional District Judge, Sonipat (referred to hereinafter as `the first appellate Court. C.M.No.1481-C of 2010 has been moved for staying the operation of the impugned judgments and decrees in the meanwhile. The appellant had filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition claiming himself to be co-sharer along with the defendant- respondent, Society, to the extent of ½ share in killa no.249/4 (1-12) and 249/8/1 (0-1), total measuring 1 kanal and 19 marlas situated within the area of Gohana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat, whereas the respondent- Society had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining him and his sons, who were impleaded as defendant nos. 2 to 4 in its suit, from interfering in its possession over the disputed land. It was pleaded by the appellant that earlier he had filed a suit for partition of the whole land and at that time, he was informed that the entire land had been acquired by the State Government and since he had received compensation, his suit was dismissed by the Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.7.1999. It was further pleaded that thereafter, some portion of the land was released on which the respondent-Society had set up its establishment. The appellant had averred that since he was a co-sharer in the property, which was subjected to acquisition, he had a right being co-sharer in the land which was subsequently released. To the contrary, the respondent-Society, in its suit as well as in the written statement filed to the suit of the appellant, had pleaded that the he was not co-sharer in the land which had been acquired by the Haryana R.S.A.No.523 of 2010 (O&M) -3- .... Urban Development Authority and that he had already received compensation qua the suit property. The filing of the earlier suit in the year 1993 was, however, admitted. It was averred that thereafter another suit was filed by the appellant which was decided in 1999 and his appeal was also dismissed with special costs. The ownership as well as possession over the suit property was claimed by the respondent-Society. Both these suits were consolidated by the trial Court. The suit of the appellant was dismissed, while the suit of the respondent-Society was decreed. It was concluded that the partition had earlier taken place between the parties and they were in possession of their respective shares and that when the land was subjected to acquisition, and the appellant had taken his compensation and relinquished all rights in the property. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial Court, the appellant and his sons had filed two separate appeals which have been dismissed by the first appellate Court resulting in the filing of the instant appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and are liable to be set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned judgments, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. The appellant had earlier filed a suit for possession by way of partition which was dismissed and the appeal against the judgment of the lower Court was also dismissed. Thereafter, the parties came to be in settled possession of their respective shares. The land was subjected to acquisition R.S.A.No.523 of 2010 (O&M) -4- .... and the appellant had received the compensation in lieu of his share of the property. Subsequently, some land was released but the appellant had miserably failed to show as to whether his share was also a part of the area which had been released from acquisition by the government. Therefore, his plea that he was a co-sharer in the area in question remained unsubstantiated. The details of the land which had been released have come on record which show that the same belonged to the respondent-Society and the appellant had no concern therewith. In any eventuality, these are pure questions of fact which have been determined by the Courts below. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen for determination in the instant appeal which is dismissed. C.M.No.14881-C of 2010 is also dismissed in view of the above. February 5,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge