-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 760 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 01, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 760 of 2011 (O&M). Kitabo Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS Dharambir and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed to the effect that the defendants-appellants were restrained from raising hurried construction and interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the suit land/ plot measuring 0 Kanal 9 Marlas, described in para No.2 of -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 760 of 2011 (O&M). the plaint. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. In fact, the entire case of of the defendants-appellants before the Courts below was that the revenue entries in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents in respect of the plot in dispute were wrong and that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants, namely, Pirthi had purchased the plot in dispute from Smt. Darka wife of Lakhi adopted son of Har Lal vide agreement Exhibit D.W.1/C. Jamabandi (Exhibit P.1) reveals that earlier Har Lal son of Jamna was owner in possession of the plot in dispute. This fact was not disputed by the defendants in the written statement. Admittedly, after the death of Har Lal, mutation of inheritance of Har Lal was sanctioned in favour of his daughters, namely, Bohti and Shanti, mothers of the plaintiff-respondents, in equal shares. The defendants had taken the plea that Lakhi Ram, husband of vendor Smt. Darka, had been adopted by Har Lal and after the death of Lakhi Ram the plot in dispute was inherited by Lakhi Ram being adopted son of Har Lal; that Lakhi Ram died issueless and after his death Smt.Darka become owner of the plot in dispute; and that the predecessor in interest of the -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 760 of 2011 (O&M). defendants-appellants had purchased the plot in dispute from Smt.Darka. However, the defendants could not prove by leading any evidence that Lakhi Ram had been adopted by Har Lal in the presence of his own children. Still further, in the agreement to sell allegedly executed by Smt.Darka widow of Lakhi Ram in favour of Pirthi, predecessor in interest of the defendants-appellants, which is Exhibit D.W.1/C, the number of plot is not mentioned. The boundaries mentioned in this agreement to sell also do not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the report (Exhibit D.W.3/D) given by the Local Commissioner, who was appointed by the trial Court. As such, from the agreement to sell (Exhibit D.W.1/C), it could not be proved by the defendants-appellants that Smt.Darka had made this agreement in respect of the plot in dispute. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 01, 2011. JUDGE ak