RSA No.1931 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 27.02.2008. Ludhiana Improvement Trust, Ludhiana. ... Appellant Versus Maharishi Balmiki Sabha, New Kartar Nagar, Gali No.2, Opposite Dhuri Link fatak No.C-3, Ludhiana. ... Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.Vinish Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This is defendant's Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a restraint order against the present appellant (defendant in the suit) from interfering in his possession and from demolishing the temple RSA No.1931 of 2007 -2- constructed by the Maharishi Balmiki Mandir allegedly constructed in the year 1965. The defendant-appellant herein claimed that no notice under Section 98 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust has been served. The defendant also claimed that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata and no suit for injunction lies against it. The plaintiff examined PW-1 Rattan Lal and PW-2 Sham Lal. Plaintiff also placed on record a site plan and the photographs. In addition to that the plaintiff also placed on record various receipt books and copies of jamabandi Ex. P-54 showing the ownership of the Society, namely, Atam Nagar Cooperative Building Society. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish its right and claim over the property and dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 27.02.2006. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana and the learned Lower Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.11.2006, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Lower Appellate Court re- appreciated the evidence on record and while referring to the evidence of the plantiff's witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 as also document Ex.P-5, i.e. Jamabandi for the years 2000-2001, came to the conclusion that the suit property is in possession of the plaintiff and has been shown under the ownership of Society, namely, Atam Nagar Cooperative Building Society. The learned Lower Appellate Court has also referred to various receipts, whereby the plaintiff-society had been receiving the donations. The learned Lower Appellate Court has referred to the statement of Patwari, who appeared as DW-1. The patwari has stated that he never visited the spot and also mentioned that even though the land was acquired, but its possession RSA No.1931 of 2007 -3- was never taken. The learned Lower Appellate Court also reversed the findings and decreed the suit of the plaintiff restraining the defendant- appellant herein from interfering into the possession of the plaintiff. However, the appellant has been granted liberty to take possession in due course of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue that there is no evidence to prove possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. According to him, it was obligatory upon the plaintiff to have established by documentary evidence that the plaintiff is in possession. I am unable to accept this contention. It is not necessary that possession can only be established by documentary evidence. There is enough evidence on record including the receipts of donations etc. to establish the possession of the plaintiff. In cross-examination the questions asked to the defendant's witness clearly indicates that the defendant also believes that the plaintiff is in possession. One of the suggestive question asked to the witness is that temple has been constructed in the middle of the road. In any case, there is findings of fact recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court. It is settled law that Lower Appellate Court is the final Court of fact. Existence of substantial question of law is sine qua non for interference in the second appeal. No substantial question of law arises. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 27.02.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO RSA No.1931 of 2007 -4-