IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4864 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2011. Tej Kaur and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus State of Punjab and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 25.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide which appeal filed by the present appellants- plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 01.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.4864 of 2010 Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed by appellants- plaintiffs for permanent injunction on the ground that appellants-plaintiffs have been continuing in peaceful possession over the property in dispute since the time of their forefathers and their possession was open, continuous without payment of anything in lieu of possession and hostile against the true owner and that however, now respondent-State intends to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs as owner and wants to dispossess them forcibly. Suit was contested by respondent-Government by taking the plea that respondent-Government is owner in possession of the property in dispute and that Bakhtawar Singh, predecessor-in-interest, was in unauthorized occupation of the land in question and after his death, the possession of the appellants-plaintiffs is also unauthorized over the same. Suit of the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that admittedly appellants-plaintiffs are continuing in possession over the property in dispute and that their possession is permissive. Hence, they cannot be dispossessed from the land in dispute except in due course of law. It is further contended that appellants-plaintiffs are not claiming any relief of declaration. However, the plea cannot be accepted as the case of appellants- plaintiffs is that they have been continuing in possession without making any payment and that their possession is open and hostile and hence, they have become owner in possession of the land in dispute. It has also been 2 RSA No.4864 of 2010 contended by learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs that respondent- Government has already filed suit for possession against the present appellants-plaintiffs. In view of these facts, present appellants-plaintiffs are in possession over the land in dispute without any right and hence, they are having no right to seek injunction against true owner. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) August 19, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3