IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2618 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 04, 2011. Baljit Kaur ...........Appellant Versus Manjit Kaur & Others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Vinay Kumar Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. (Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2010, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 01.05.2009, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagraon, vide which suit filed by respondent-plaintiff was decreed to the extent that the present appellant-defendant was restrained from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from the property in dispute except in due course of law. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below. Regular Second Appeal No.2618 of 2011 -2- Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for permanent injunction restraining present appellant-defendant from dispossessing him forcibly and illegally from the property in dispute. Suit was contended by appellant-defendant. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff restraining the present appellant-defendant from dispossessing him from the property in dispute except in due course of law. Appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against the said judgment and decree has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant- defendant is that appellant-defendant is true owner of the property in dispute and hence, no injunction can be granted against the true owner. However, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Though it has been held by learned Courts below that the appellant-defendant has not been proved to be owner of the property in dispute and however, he has admitted possession of respondent-plaintiff over the property in dispute. It is also admitted that the respondent-plaintiff and Manjit Kaur are real sisters and they have been residing together along with her mother-in-law in the house in dispute since the time of their marriage. Hence, settled possession of respondent-plaintiff over the property in dispute has been proved. Hence, she could not be dispossessed except in due course of law. Appellant-defendant has only been restrained from dispossessing respondent-plaintiff from the property in dispute except in due course of law. Regular Second Appeal No.2618 of 2011 -3- 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 misappreciation 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 04, 2011 JUDGE Gagan