Regular Second Appeal No. 3214 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 3214 of 2006 Date of Decision: 4.12.2008 Jagat Singh …Appellant Versus Gurdip Kaur and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the appellant/defendants Jagat Singh was decreed by learned trial Court. Learned trial Court relied on compromise Ex.P1, which was attested by many members of the Khangi Panchayat and in support of Ex.P1 compromise, PW.3 Brahm Dass. PW.4 Harbans Singh scribe of the written compromise were also examined. PW.5 Satpal Singh witness to the compromise Ex.P1 also supported the case of the plaintiffs. Undisputedly, both plaintiffs and defendants have no title over the property. Learned trial Court found the version of plaintiffs' witnesses Regular Second Appeal No. 3214 of 2006 2 along with Ex.P1 to be one which aspire confidence. Appellant/defendant Jagat Singh himself appeared as DW.1 along with one Joginder Pal DW.2. Learned trial Court held that the testimony of these two witnesses is not trustworthy. Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, appearing for the appellant stated that it has come in the cross-examination of the scribe that Ex.P1 was executed at the instance of the police. Appellant was having a plea that the scribe was inimically deposed towards the appellant as there are cases pending between the parties under Sections 307 & 302 IPC. However, Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, is unable to state as to whether these cases have ensued before or after the execution of compromise Ex.P1. Mr. Vikas Singh has further stated that it has come in the cross- examination of appellant Jagat Singh DW.1 that he had instituted a criminal case against scribe Harbans Singh PW.4, before execution of the agreement Ex.P1. It has been further contended by Mr. Vikas Singh that in case Ex.P1 is ignored then the revenue entries of possession are in favour of the defendant and they should be taken into consideration. The two Courts below have given a concurrent finding that compromise Ex.P1 has been executed at the instance of Khangi Panchayat, which has been witnessed by many persons, is reliable. The Courts have further found the oral version of the plaintiff in support of document Ex.P1 to be trustworthy. Evidence of both sides has been appreciated. Appreciation of evidence is not open to challenge in a regular second appeal, even otherwise, view formulated by the two Courts below is one of the view Regular Second Appeal No. 3214 of 2006 3 which can be arrived at taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties. Therefore, in regular second appeal, no interference is warranted as no substantial question of law arise. Hence, the present regular second appeal is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 4, 2008 “DK”