R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 Date of Decision:11.08.2011 Attar Singh ......Appellant Versus Smt.Kashmiri .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record are, that Smt.Kashmiri wife of Ramesh-respondent- plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining her brother Attar Singh son of Har Nand- appellant-defendant(for brevity “the defendant”), from dispossessing her from the house in question and changing its nature, creating any charge over it till the property is partitioned, inter alia, pleading that Har Nand, father of the parties, was the owner and she came in possession of the house, as a co-sharer, after the death of her father. 2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the plaintiff that, after the death of her father, she became the co-owner along with her brother Attar Singh-defendant. She is in exclusive possession of the house in dispute, but the defendant illegally intends to dispossess her and to alienate the same, without any legal right. She asked the defendant, not to do so, but in vain, which necessitated her to file the present suit. R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 2 On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 3. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. It was admitted that Har Nand, father of the parties, was the owner in possession of the house in dispute. However, it was claimed that during his lifetime, the house in question was given to the defendant by his father Har Nand. In all, according to the defendant that, he is owner and in possession and the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in the suit land. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. The parties to the lis, in order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands, brought on record oral as well as the documentary evidence in this respect. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire oral as well as the documentary evidence brought on record by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 20.08.2010. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well by the first Appellate Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011. He still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this regard. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in the suit property, so, the Courts below R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 3 committed a legal mistake in decreeing her suit, sans merit. 9. As is evident from the record that Har Nand son of Mamraj, father of the parties, was the owner in possession of his self-acquired property. After his death, the plaintiff and the defendant became co-owner and in possession of the suit property by way of natural succession. Once, it is proved that the plaintiff is co-owner and in possession of the land in dispute, then naturally the defendant alone has got no right, title or interest to alienate or create any charge, in order to deprive the plaintiff from her legal right in the property in question. 10. In this manner, to me, the trial Court has rightly accepted the claim of the plaintiff. Not only that, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by way of judgment and decree dated 24.01.2011, the operative part of which is, as under:- “Thus, from the only document proved by the defendant, it is clearly established that property was suit property received in gift by his father Har Nand and plaintiff Kashmiri was the daughter of Har Nand as the defendant has not led any cogent and convincing evidence to prove the factum of previous marriage of mother of Kashmiri with some one. Whereas the plaintiff had examined PW1 Chandgi and PW2 Sheo Ram. They belong to same caste and had clearly stated that Kashmiri was the real daughter of Har Nand born from his second wife. So, in these circumstances, findings of learned Additional Civil Judge on issues No.1 and 2 that plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit property and she had a right restrain the defendant from alienating the suit property till partition and she is entitled for injunction being co-sharer and the suit property was self acquired by Har Nand.” 11. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend that how and in what manner, any interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 12. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant, to assail the findings of the Courts below. All the remaining contentions, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 4 be urged on his behalf, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below, in this relevant context. 13. Meaning thereby, the entire matter revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, much-less substantial, is involved in the second appeal, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh Versus Harnam Singh and another, 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, as contemplated under Section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. August 11, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 5 C.M.No.4401-C of 2011 in R.S.A. No.1584 of 2011 Present: Mr.O.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 11, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE