RSA No.3526 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3526 of 2009 Date of decision:12.10.2010 Harbhajan Singh ...Appellant Versus Gram Panchayat village Palki and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which his suit for permanent injunction in order to restrain the defendants from interfering in his possession over a residential house (property in dispute), has been dismissed. While upholding the finding of fact recorded by the learned Trial Court, the learned First Appellate Court observed as under: - “Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding residential area of the house of the plaintiff shown by letters ABCDEH in the site plan Ex.P1. The dispute is only with regard to portion EFGH (shown in the site plan Ex.P1) situated in between the house of the plaintiff and street . The plaintiff has claimed this portion of the suit property to be his ownership and under his possession for the last so many years. It has been inherited by him from his RSA No.3526 of 2009 -2- ***** fore-fathers and the Jamun tree standing init was also planted by his ancestrals. However, his cross – examination and documentary evidence on the file produced by the defendant No.3 contradict his plea in this regard. During cross-examination, plaintiff admitted to have purchased his residential house shown by letters ABCDEH through sale deed dated 17.01.1969. When residential area of the house was purchased by the plaintiff himself from Wattan Kaur on 17.01.1969, question of inheritance of the same along with disputed portion from the ancestrals does not arise. Even the sale deed Ex.D1 pertaining to the house of the plaintiff is silent regarding ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the disputed site marked by letters EFGH in the site plan. Rather sale deed speaks the disputed site to be independent portion shown as Thara situated in between the house of the plaintiff and street. Further, vide compromise dated 29.07.1998 Ex.D1, the plaintiff himself admitted the site in dispute to be property of the Gram Panchayat Palaki and agreed to close the passage through the disputed site. He also agreed not to cut and remove the tree standing in the disputed site. Had the disputed site was ownership of the plaintiff and was under his possession, the plaintiff never admitted the disputed site to be ownership of the Gram Panchayat. This compromise falsifies the version of the plaintiff regarding his ownership RSA No.3526 of 2009 -3- ***** and possession over the disputed site. In such circumstances, Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that plaintiff has no right or concern with the disputed site marked by letters EFGH in the site plan Ex.P1 and thus thereby declined the relief of permanent injunction. The site plan was also held to be incorrect as plaintiff himself admitted to have not affixed the iron gate or door in between the pillars, although shown in the site plan Ex.P1. The judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is based on the correct appreciation of facts and evidence on the file and there is no ground to interfere in the same.” It is now well settled that the second appeal is maintainable only on a substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but in the present case, the appellant has miserably failed to raise any substantial question of law in order to persuade this Court to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below for the purpose of interfering in the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below. Thus, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs. October 12, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE