Regular Second Appeal No. 4727 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4727 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.10.2011 *** Daya Kishan .. Appellant VS. Hari Singh & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. This is defendant’s regular second appeal. Both the Courts below while partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs, restrained defendant No.1 in the suit namely Nathu (since deceased and represented by appellant being his LR) from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. Heard. It is apparent that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant contested the suit of the plaintiff filed by him seeking declaration of right in respect of the suit property on the basis of civil Court decree dated 10.9.1975 and claimed that defendant No.1, who has no right, title or interest in the suit property, is interfering in his possession thereon. It emerges out that defendant No.1 never disputed the execution of civil Court decree dated 10.9.1975 by virtue of which the land owned by Budh Ram, the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 was ordered to be partitioned amongst them as well as other son namely Amar Singh and consequently the parties were put into possession of their respective shares. Defendant No.1 never questioned the legality of the aforesaid decree, vide which the rights Regular Second Appeal No. 4727 of 2009 2 of the parties in the suit property were settled, however, he claimed that the plaintiff was never put into possession of his share, rather the same was occupied by him. But he failed to show as to in what capacity he came into possession of the suit property and thus, it was held that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit property by virtue of decree dated 10.9.1975. Both the Courts below, finding that defendant No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property, which is exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff, rightly restrained the appellant, being the legal representative and sued in the suit, from interfering into the possession of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant appeal, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE October 18,2011 Jiten