IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3727 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: September 12, 2011. Sharda Devi and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Raj Kumar and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. R.S.Sangwan, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul vide which appeal filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 30.09.2006 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Narnaul was accepted and suit of respondent no.1- plaintiff was decreed. RSA No.3727 of 2009 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, respondent no.1-plaintiff filed this suit for a decree for declaration with consequential relief of possession on the ground that he was continuing in possession of the shop in dispute on Teh-Bazari taken from Municipal Committee, Mandi Ateli for the last so many years and was carrying on a shop of Pan Biri and General Store in the name and style of Raj Pab Bhandar and that while he was away to Delhi to meet his brother, taking benefit of the absence of plaintiff, appellants-defendants had broken the wall of the shop and had taken illegal possession of the same. Suit was contested by appellants-defendants by taking the plea that they had been continuing in possession of the shop in dispute under defendant no.5- Municipal Committee on Teh-Bazari. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff. However, appeal filed by respondent no.1- plaintiff was allowed by learned first appellate Court and suit of respondent no.1-plaintiff was decreed. Admitted facts are that, premises in dispute is owned by Municipal Committee. Both the parties are claiming rights over the property in dispute on the basis of Teh-Bazari taken from defendant no.5, Municipal Committee. Respondent-plaintiff has placed on record various receipts Ex.P2 to Ex.P11 showing payment of Teh-Bazari regarding the plot in question since the year 1986 onwards. Hence, it shows that Municipal Committee had given the said premises in dispute on Teh-Bazari to respondent-plaintiff and he was continuing in possession since the year 1986. 2 RSA No.3727 of 2009 Appellant-defendant is also claiming right over the property in dispute on the basis of Teh-Bazari showing receipts Mark DA to Mark DJ. However, the said receipts have not been duly proved. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record that Teh-Bazari of plaintiff was ever cancelled by Municipal Committee before allegedly giving the same on Teh-Bazari to appellant- defendant. Hence, learned first appellant court has come to the conclusion that respondent-plaintiff was dispossessed from the premises in dispute while he was out of town by present appellant-defendant forcibly and illegally. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned first appellate Court in passing the impugned judgment and decree. Finding recorded by learned first appellate Court is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 12, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3