IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2062 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 3, 2011. Urmila. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Salawat and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K.Jain and Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocates, for the appellant. Ms. Sandipa Mehta, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 01.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Sirsa dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against judgment and decree dated 04.05.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge(Senior Division), Dabwali decreeing the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. 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. RSA No.2062 of 2010 Briefly stated, respondent-plaintiff filed suit for a decree of preemption by way of proprietary possession in respect of the land in dispute fully described in the head-note of the plaint on the plea that he has been continuing in possession as a tenant over the land in dispute on payment of 1/3rd Batai to the owner and that he has been continuing as such for the last 50 years. It has been specifically plead that he was tenant on the date of execution of the sale deed, at the time of filing of the suit and still continuing as such. Plea was also taken that the land was sold by previous owner to present appellant-defendant in a clandestine manner without giving any notice to respondents-plaintiffs and hence, the suit. On notice being issued, appellant-defendant admitted that he purchased the land in dispute from previous owner –Ram Lal for a consideration of `57,000/-. Further plea has been taken that a notice was also issued by the present appellant-defendant to plaintiff and however, plaintiff gave his consent and stated that he did not want to purchase the land and hence, plea has been taken that plaintiff is having no right to preempt the land. On appreciation of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff. Appeal filed by the present appellant-defendant against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that respondent-plaintiff himself did not appear in the witness box and that only his son appeared as his attorney and hence, plaintiff could not be cross-examined by the appellant-defendant on the point 2 RSA No.2062 of 2010 as to whether he was having notice of the sale in favour of defendant and as to whether he did not object to it. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that plaintiff is having sufficient reasons for not appearing in the witness box as he was very old person and was not keeping good health. It is further contended that his son appeared in the witness box as his attorney and that plaintiff also died during pendency of the suit. It is also contended that even present appellant-defendant appeared through general power of attorney. The admitted facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff was tenant over the property in dispute and he was continuing as tenant on the date of execution of sale deed in favour of defendant executed by the previous owner. He is still continuing as tenant over the land in dispute. Appellant-defendant has failed to prove that respondent-plaintiff was having notice regarding execution of sale deed and that he consented to the same. 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 both the 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 mis-appreciation 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. 3 RSA No.2062 of 2010 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) November 2, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4