IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2456 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 31, 2011. Gurjant Singh. ...... APPELLANT. Versus Nachattar Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Pardeep Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M. No.6746-C of 2011. Heard. Taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 4 days in re-filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. CM No.6747-C of 2011 Heard. In view of the facts mentioned in the application accompanied by affidavit, appellant is allowed to make good the deficiency in court fee. It RSA No.2456 of 2011(O&M) has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that he has already made good the deficiency in the court fee. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. C.M. No.6748-C of 2011. Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2456 of 2011. The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda dismissing the appeal filed by present appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 6.5.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo decreeing the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant and have gone through the whole record including impugned judgments passed by the Courts below. Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for decree of permanent injunction restraining the present appellant-defendant from illegally and forcibly interfering in their possession over the land in dispute on the plea that they are exclusive owners in possession of the land in dispute and appellant-defendant has no right to interfere in their possession. On notice being issued, present appellant-defendant has denied that respondents-plaintiffs only are in possession of the same rather plea has been taken that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute. 2 RSA No.2456 of 2011(O&M) On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that he has been continuing in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of family settlement arrived between the parties. However, the plea cannot be accepted as no such evidence has been adduced by the appellant-defendant that there was any such family settlement. Rather, no such plea was taken by the appellant-defendant in the written statement. On the other hand, sufficient documentary evidence has been produced by the respondents-plaintiffs to show that they are in possession of the land in dispute as owners. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 31, 2011. JUDGE Sachin M. 3