RSA No.795 of 2008(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.795 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision: November 4, 2011 Sarla Devi and others .....Appellants v. Shri Hari Om and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for respondent no.1. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.10.2007 dismissing appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 25.11.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala Cantt., vide which suit filed by present appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed this suit for a decree for mandatory injunction directing respondent-defendant to hand over possession of the property in dispute, i.e., a portion of H.No.999, Teli Mandi, Ambala Cantt., on the plea that respondent-defendant was inducted as licencee in the said portion of the house and that he has since revoked the RSA No.795 of 2008(O&M) -2- said licence. On notice being issued, respondent-defendant denied that appellants-plaintiffs are owner of the property in dispute and that he was inducted as a licencee in the said portion by appellants-plaintiffs. Rather plea has been taken that he had been continuing in possession of the property in dispute for the last more than 40 years and that he has also become owner by way of adverse possession. In the replication case set up by present appellants-plaintiffs is that a Will dated 29.11.1947 was executed in favour of their predecessor-in- interest, i.e., the original plaintiff-Jagdish Chander and in favour of his brothers, namely, Brahma Nand, Om Parkash and Sham Sunder and that out of them two of his brothers, i.e., Om Parkash and Brahma Nand already gave their share to the plaintiff in the family settlement and suffered a consent decree in his favour. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Ambala. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that respondent-defendant has taken the plea that he has become owner by way of adverse possession and hence, impliedly he has admitted ownership of appellants-plaintiffs. However, the said plea cannot be accepted. Plaintiff is to stand on its own legs. Predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, i.e., Jagdish Chander, the original plaintiff has come to the Court with a specific plea that he is owner of the property in dispute and that respondent- defendant was inducted by him as a licencee. However, no date has been RSA No.795 of 2008(O&M) -3- mentioned as to when respondent-defendant was allegedly inducted as a licencee. Rather he has admitted in the cross-examination that respondent- defendant has been residing in the house since birth. Both the parties are real brothers. It shows that respondent-defendant has been continuing in possession since the time father of the parties was alive. 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 learned 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. 4.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge