Regular Second Appeal No.450 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.450 of 2009 Date of Decision:-13.9.2011 Iqbal Singh and others ---Appellants Versus Mohinder Singh ---Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Premjit Kalia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Charan Singh son of Kartar Singh (since deceased), now being represented by his LRs Iqbal Singh and others- appellant-plaintiffs (for brevity “the original plaintiff”) filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Mohinder Singh son of Kunan Singh alias Kundan Singh respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant”) from dispossessing him (original plaintiff) and from alienating the land in dispute in any manner, inter-alia pleading that he purchased suit land, situated within the abadi deh of village Khatrain Kalan from Harbhajan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Jagtar Singh and Udham Singh, by way of sale deed dated 4.8.2000 (Ex.P1). Thus, he was owner and in possession of the same and the defendant intends to forcibly dispossess him and to alienate it, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the original plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner indicated hereinabove. 2. The defendant contested the suit and filed the written statement, inter-alia raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, estoppel, concealment of facts, cause of action and locus standi of the original Regular Second Appeal No.450 of 2009 -2- plaintiff. The case set up by the defendant, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the original plaintiff was neither owner nor in possession of the land in dispute. As his vendors were not owners, therefore, they had no alienable right in it and the alleged sale deed (Ex.P1) is illegal, void and not binding on their rights. According to the defendant, Hukam Singh was the owner and after his death, the suit property devolved upon his daughter Satnam Kaur, who is mother of the defendant. Satnam Kaur sold the suit land to defendant for ` 36,000/-, through the sale deed dated 1.8.2000 (Ex.D1). Since then, he is owner and in possession of the land in dispute and original plaintiff had got no right, title or interest in it. 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. 3. Controverting the allegations of the written statement and reiterating the pleadings contained in the plaint, the original plaintiff filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. 4. The parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit of the original plaintiff, by means of judgment and decree dated 8.2.2006. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendant filed the appeal, which was accepted, the judgment and decree of trial Court were reversed and suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed, by the Ist Appellate Court, through the medium of impugned judgment and decree dated 24.9.2008. 7. The appellants-LRs of original plaintiff, did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court and preferred the present regular second appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire Regular Second Appeal No.450 of 2009 -3- matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 9. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the original plaintiff was proved to be owner and in possession of the suit land, so, the Ist Appellate Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing his suit, lacks merit. 10. As is evident from the record that the original plaintiff claimed that he was owner and in possession of the property in dispute, which he had purchased from Harbhajan Singh, Kashmir Singh, Jagtar Singh and Udham Singh, by virtue of sale deed dated 4.8.2000 (Ex.P1), which was stoutly denied by the defendant. In that eventuality, a heavy burden of proof was on the original plaintiff to prove that his vendors were actually the owners and in possession and had any alienable right in the disputed property, but he had miserably failed in this relevant connection. The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court in decreeing the suit of original plaintiff, was that since the jamabandi (Ex.P3) shows that the suit property, measuring 99 kanals 18 marlas in Khasra No.43, is shown as abadi deh and is in possession of the residents of the village, so, his vendors must had the possession of it with them, which they parted in favour of original plaintiff. Here, to me, the trial Court slipped into deep legal error and has just ignored the evidence on record with impunity in general and sale deed (Ex.D1) in favour of defendant in particular. The mistake committed by the trial Court was rectified and the Ist Appellate Court, having scanned the evidence in the right perspective, rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiffs, by way of impugned judgment dated 24.9.2008, which, in substance, is (paras 17 & 18) as under:- “17. I have gone through the pleadings/evidence led by the plaintiff which is in self contradictory. The plaint and the sale deed state dimension of the property some thing else while the plaintiff has deposed giving separate location. In the sale deed (Ex.P1), the suit property is bounded as East -Passage, West -Residential house, North-House of Ladoo and South- open space, but the plaintiff has given the location as East- passage, West- house of Bachan Singh, North-house of Swaran Singh and South-house of Kundan Singh. On comparison, the plaintiff has given the location of the Regular Second Appeal No.450 of 2009 -4- suit property contrary to the property mentioned in the sale-deed. So, the plaintiff is not confirmed qua the suit property. 18. So far as the relief claimed by the defendant is concerned, he has relied upon the sale deed dated 1.8.2000 executed by Satnam Kaur qua the land measuring 0K-12M from khasra No.43 and the sale-deed is Ex.D1. The learned counsel argued that when the plaintiff cannot claim ownership on the basis of the sale deed dated 4.8.2000 qua khasra No.43 which is Abadi Deh and is in possession of Bashind Gaun, then the status of the appellant is also identical to that of the plaintiff.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellants did not point out any material, much less cogent, to show as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 12. Meaning thereby, the Ist Appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, it has recorded the above-mentioned findings of fact. Such pure findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Ist appellate Court, in this behalf. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs to assail the findings in the impugned judgment and decree. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Ist Appellate Court. 14. Sequelly, the entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re- appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond Regular Second Appeal No.450 of 2009 -5- the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and decree of the Ist Appellate Court, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 13.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No