IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2589 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 4, 2011. Smt. Sukhiya and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Hari Singh and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Surinder Dagar, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 18.03.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal allowing the appeal filed by respondent-defendant no.1 against judgment and decree dated 24.12.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Palwal decreeing the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, present appellants-plaintiffs filed suit for decree for declaration that they are exclusive owners in possession of the property in RSA No.2589 of 2011 dispute and that revenue entries in favour of respondents-defendants are null and void with the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs forcibly from the land in dispute. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants by taking the plea that earlier Killa no.7/1 and Killa no.8/1 were jointly allotted to the parties and however, on oral partition Killa no.7/1 came to the share of respondents-defendants whereas Killa no.8/1 came to the share of appellants-plaintiffs. Learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs by holding that they are proved to be exclusive owners of the suit property and that revenue entries in favour of respondents-defendants since 1958 onwards are illegal, null and void and respondents-defendants were also directed to handover the vacant possession of the disputed plot to present appellants-plaintiffs. However, appeal filed by respondents-defendants was allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal vide impugned judgment and decree and the suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was ordered to be dismissed. The only point argued by learned counsel for the appellants is that as per copy of Istemal, Ex.P2/H disputed plot no.7/1 was allotted to Hardayal, predecessor-in-interest of appellants-plaintiffs and that plot no.8/1 was allotted to Ram Lal and plot no.8/2 was allotted to Budh Ram, father of respondent-defendant no.1 and hence, it is contended that respondents- defendants are having no concern with disputed Killa no.7/1. However, the plea was rightly not accepted by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal. As per the Jamabandi for the year 1958-1959, Ex.D2, it was recorded that all these Killa numbers were jointly owned and possessed by both the parties. There is no dispute that the present appellants-plaintiffs are successors-in- 2 RSA No.2589 of 2011 interest of Hardayal and present respondents-defendants are successors-in- interest of Ram Lal. As per the case of respondents-defendants the land was orally partitioned and Killa no.7/1 came to their share whereas Killa no.8/1 came to the share of appellants-plaintiffs. One of the plaintiffs i.e. plaintiff no.3 appeared in the witness box as PW2 and admitted that they are in possession of Killa no.8/1 and they have raised construction over the same. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal that since Killa no.8/1 is in possession of present appellants-plaintiffs, respondents-defendants are deemed to be in possession of other Killa no.7/1 and that their plea that the suit land was orally partitioned amongst all the co- sharers is believable. Moreover, the present suit has not been filed for possession and despite that decree for possession was granted by learned trial Court. No application was moved before learned trial Court by present appellants-plaintiffs seeking relief of possession. No specific plea was also taken that they were allegedly dispossessed from the land in dispute during the pendency of suit. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by learned Additional District Judge, Palwal 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 3 RSA No.2589 of 2011 determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 4, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4