REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.581 OF 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.581 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 17 th MARCH, 2011 Champa & others .... Appellants Versus Sawaran Lal & others .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CM No.1636-C of 2010 For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 105 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Main Appeal: Legal representatives of Girdhari Lal defendant No.1 (since deceased) have filed the instant second appeal, having lost in both the courts below. Respondents No.1 to 4/plaintiffs filed suit against Girdhari Lal- defendant No.1 (since deceased and represented by appellants) and against proforma respondents No.5 to 8 as defendants No.2 to 5. Admittedly plaintiffs and Girdhari Lal, since deceased, are sons of Karam Chand, whereas defendants No.2 to 5 are daughters of Karam Chand. Plaintiffs' case is that on migration from Pakistan to India, suit house was allotted to Karam Chand by way of conveyance deed and since the year 1955, Karam Chand, father of the parties, was owner of the suit property. Ram Rakhi, mother of the parties, expired on 30.04.1992 whereas Karam Chand REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.581 OF 2010 (O&M) -2- died on 02.05.1994. The plaintiffs accordingly claimed that both the parties being legal heirs of their parents are owners of the suit house in equal shares. Plaintiffs sought declaration to this effect along with ancillary relief of permanent injunction. Defendant No.1 while admitting the relationship between the parties broadly denied the other plaint allegations. It was alleged that the suit house was never owned or possessed by Karam Chand. It was pleaded that Karam Chand's brother Dhunda Ram was the original owner in possession of the suit house which was transferred by him to Shanti Devi wife of defendatn No.1, because Dhunda Ram was real 'Fufa' of Shanti Devi. The suit has been filed by plaintiffs in collusion with defendants No.2 to 5. Plaintiffs and defendants No.2 to 5 have no concern with the suit house. It was pleaded that Shanti Devi is exclusive owner in possession of the suit house. Defendant No.1 also claimed to have become owner of suit house by adverse possession. Defendants No.2 to 5 admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City vide judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008 decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by legal heirs of defendant No.1 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 10.03.2009. Feeling aggrieved, legal heirs of defendant No.1 have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Insofar as claim of defendant No.1 is concerned, there is no documentary evidence to depict that the suit house was ever allotted to Dhunda Ram. There is also no plea or evidence to depict as to how Dhunda Ram gave REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.581 OF 2010 (O&M) -3- the suit house to wife of defendant No.1. There is no registered gift deed or any other deed in this regard. Consequently, claim of defendant No.1 is patently untenable. Plaintiffs have to stand on their own legs, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellants. However, plaintiffs have produced conveyance deed Exhibit PW-3/A to depict that the suit house was allotted to Karam Chand. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the said deed does not mention number of the house whereas description given overleaf in schedule I is not legible, as observed by the lower appellate court. However, this contention, although apparently attractive, is devoid of merits. Defendant's own evidence reveals, in addition to the conveyance deed, that the suit house was owned by Karam Chand, father of the parties. Shanti Devi is wife of defendant No.1. According to claim of defendant No.1, Shanti Devi was exclusive owner of the suit house. However, Shanti Devi specifically stated in cross- examination that the suit house is in the name of Karam Chand i.e. father of the parties. DW-2 Brij Bahadur examined by defendant No.1 stated in cross- examination that Girdhari Lal told him that he i.e. Girdhari Lal had purchased the suit house. However, it is not even the case of the defendant No.1 that he had purchased the suit house either from Karam Chand or from Dhunda Ram. On the other hand, Brij Bahadur DW-2 also specifically admitted that the suit house was in the name of Karam Chand. He also stated that Rakesh Kumar- plaintiff No.3 was also residing in the suit house. Dev Raj DW-3 stated that Girdhari Lal defendant No.1 had told him that he i.e. Girdhari Lal had purchased the suit house from Dhunda Ram. However, there is no such plea taken by defendant No.1 in his written statement nor there is any document in support of the said statement made by Dev Raj DW-3. However, it is apparent REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.581 OF 2010 (O&M) -4- from defendant's own evidence that the suit house was owned by Karam Chand. There is also plaintiff's evidence to this effect. Conveyance deed Exhibit PW- 3/A further strengthens the plaintiff's case because it is not even the case of contesting defendant No.1 that some property other than the suit house had been allotted to Karam Chand by the said conveyance deed. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that Karam Chand was owner of the suit house and the same has been inherited by both the parties in equal shares being legal heirs of Karam Chand, is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. As already noticed hereinbefore, there is practically no evidence to substantiate the claim of defendant No.1 that the suit house was allotted to Dhunda Ram or that Dhunda Ram gave it to Shanti Devi. Certificates Exhibit DW-1/C and Exhibit DW-1/B produced by defendant No.1 in evidence relate to payment of compensation but these certificates do not relate to allotment of any property either to Dhunda Ram or to Karam Chand. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below in favour of plaintiffs does not warrant interference in second appeal because it is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 17th March, 2011 'raj'