IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1230 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 24, 2009 Narata Ram and others ....Appellants Versus Ajmer Singh and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages/compensation was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, on 15.10.2007. Even the first appeal filed by them was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, on 14.1.2009. They are now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had earlier filed civil suit No.39-CS of 1985/1990, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 20.7.1992. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed on 29.11.1994 and the High Court had also dismissed the second appeal on 11.1.1996. The defendants also filed civil suit No.372 of 1996/2000, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 2.9.2002 and by the appellate Court on 13.12.2003. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants had been taking R.S.A. No. 1230 of 2009 -2- totally false and incorrect pleas regarding their ownership and possession in respect of the suit land due to which the plaintiffs had to face false litigation and suffered mental and physical harassment, besides financial loss. They, accordingly, filed the present suit so as to claim damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The stand of the defendants in their written statement was that the previous suits pertained to different properties. There were criminal cases pending between the parties. The ownership of the plaintiffs qua the suit property was not denied. However, they disputed that the plaintiffs were owners in possession of the land situated in the abadi. The plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the abadi deh land, which was owned and possessed by the defendants. They also denied that the previous suits were false. They, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the learned trial Court, while dismissing the suit held that the defendants had filed earlier suits for agitating their right pertaining to the land of abadi deh for which even as per admission of PW1, the suit for possession was still pending. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not entitled to any damages as prayed by them in the present suit. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court were upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, while dismissing the first appeal of the plaintiffs. R.S.A. No. 1230 of 2009 -3- It has been found as a matter of fact that the plaintiffs had been staking their claim of being owners in possession of the land situated in khatauni No. 79, rectangle No.17, Khasra No. 3/1(0-10). The defendants have not disputed the ownership of the plaintiffs over the suit land. The dispute pertained to the land of abadi deh for which the defendants had knocked the doors of the Court by filing a suit for possession against the present plaintiffs. The admission made by Narata Ram, one of the plaintiffs, when he appeared as PW1, that the only concern of the plaintiffs was with the land of Khasra No. 17/3/1 and Ajmer Singh defendant might have filed the suit with respect to the land of abadi deh would go a long way to show that the defendants had earlier been agitating their civil rights. It is another thing that their pleas could not find favour with the Courts. At the same time, they could not be said to have driven the plaintiffs and their father in false litigation. This assumes significance when considered in the light of the admission made by PW1 Narata Ram that the suit for possession of the land of abadi deh was still pending. Alongwith the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs, they had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code for adducing additional evidence. They wanted to bring on record the judgment and decree dated 3.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, whereby the suit for possession filed by the defendants was dismissed. They also wanted to produce copy of the order dated 23.3.2004 passed by the High Court. However, they did not attach the copy of the R.S.A. No. 1230 of 2009 -4- order dated 23.3.2004. As the present suit for damages was not based on the outcome of the suit for possession filed by the defendants, learned lower appellate Court was justified in holding that the said decision was totally extraneous for the purpose of deciding the first appeal. In view of the above, the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below are based on appreciation of the material evidence brought on the record. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that either the findings are perverse or suffer from any illegality or infirmity. As such, these findings are immune from challenge in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as formulated by the appellants, do not arise for determination. Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and, thus, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 24, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1