Regular Second Appeal No.3268 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3268 of 1987 Date of Decision:-25.7.2011 Nanak and others ...Appellants Versus Kashmiri Lal (since deceased) through his LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.J.V.Chandail, Advocate for the respondents. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not ? 2. Having regard to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, to me, as no such substantial question of law is involved, therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal. 3. As is evident from the record that the suit for permanent injunction filed by Kashmiri Lal (since deceased), now represented by his LRs, respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) was decreed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 14.10.1986, the operative part of which is (para 19) as under:- “In view of my findings on various issues, suit of the plaintiff Regular Second Appeal No.3268 of 1987 -2- succeeds and a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, restraining the latter permanent from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the plot in dispute and also from making any encroachment upon the same. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to the record room, after compliance.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants filed the appeal and the Ist appellate Court modified its judgment, by way of impugned judgment dated 24.7.1987 to the extent as mentioned hereinbelow (para 8):- “In view of my above discussion, the Judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the plaintiff shall provide a passage 23 x 10 ft. to the defendants as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.P.4, between points A and B. So, the appeal is partly accepted to the extent that the plaintiff shall provide the aforesaid passage (23 X 10') to the defendants through his land. As regards the remaining portion of Khasra No.8005, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree-sheet be prepared and file be consigned to records after due compliance.” 5. The appellant-defendants still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the courts below and preferred the instant appeal. 6. What is not disputed here is that the plaintiff is proved to be owner and in possession of the plot in dispute, which was purchased by him, vide sale deed (Ex.P2). This plot includes the land, which was, at one time, used as ramp for drawing water from the well. Although the defendants did not have any legal/ vested right to pass through the land of the plaintiff as held by the trial Court, but still, as a grace and on humanitarian ground, the first appellate Court directed him (plaintiff) to provide passage of 23 x 10' to the defendants. Still, the defendants have filed the present appeal, without any legal basis. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendants did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the impugned Regular Second Appeal No.3268 of 1987 -3- judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having analyzed the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, both the courts below have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, 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 Courts below, in this regard. 8. As neither any substantial question of law is involved, nor any other meaningful argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings of the Courts below in this respect, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 25.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No