In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ….. R.S.A. No.1377 of 2005 (O&M) …. Date of decision:11.3.2008 Parma Nand …..Appellant v. Smt. Sukhma …..Respondent ….. Present: Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Bairagi, Advocate for the respondent. ….. S.S. Saron, J. Smt. Sukhma, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction on the allegation that she was owner of the house which is subject matter of dispute. The said house had been given to her (Smt. Sukhma) by her mother-in-law Smt. Dhan Kaur in a family settlement in pursuance of decree dated 17.7.1995 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Jhajjar in case titled Mukesh etc. v. Dhan Kaur. The defendant-appellant, who was a head strong person was bent upon interfering in the peaceful ownership and possession of the plaintiff-respondent in the disputed house. Therefore, suit for injunction was filed. The defendant took the stand that he was the owner in actual physical possession of the disputed house which had been given to him after the death of his father. It was stated that Smt. Dhan Kaur was not owner of the disputed house as she had already R.S.A. No.1377 of 2005 (O&M) [2] transferred the same in pursuance of the decree dated 17.7.1995. The defendant had already filed a separate suit challenging the aforesaid decree. It was also stated that the defendant had been in possession of the house for the last more than 20 years after the death of his father and, therefore, he had become owner of the same by way of adverse possession. The learned trial Court placed reliance on the deposition of Raj Singh, who is the real brother of the deceased husband of the plaintiff and that of defendant-appellant Parma Nand. It was held that he has decisively settled the entire controversy by stating that neither he (Raj Singh) nor Parma Nand (defendant-appellant) had any concern with the disputed house which was owned and possessed by plaintiff-Sukhma. It was stated that the house had been given to Sukhma by his mother for the service rendered by her (plaintiff). It was also stated by Raj Singh (PW-2) that when they had separated, his father had constructed two houses i.e. one for him and one for Parma Nand (defendant). He gave the house in the `Abadi’ to Anar Singh, the deceased husband of the plaintiff. Thereafter, his mother and father started living in the disputed house and after the death of his father, his mother started living with Anar Singh and during her life time, Smt. Dhan Kaur, the mother of Raj Singh (PW-2) and mother-in-law of the plaintiff had made Sukhma, the plaintiff as owner of the disputed house. On the basis of statement of plaintiff, Sukhma (PW-1) and Raj Singh (PW-2) it was held that plaintiff was owner in possession of the disputed house and the defendant had failed to prove his ownership. In fact, the defendant-Parma Nand while appearing as DW-1 stated that when his father died in 1989, their property was separate. Besides, in the examination-in-chief the R.S.A. No.1377 of 2005 (O&M) [3] defendant stated that he had separated from his father in 1980. The defendant aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 7.1.2002 assailed the same before the learned lower appellate Court and his appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8.1.2005. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant-appellant has filed the present appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record it may be noticed that there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree of the learned Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show anything which may warrant the dislodging of the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. On the basis of evidence and material on record, it has been held that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner in possession of the disputed property. Besides, the defendant was claiming right of ownership in the suit property on the plea that he had been residing in the disputed house after the demise of his father. However, defendant while appearing as DW-1 himself accepted that he had separated from his father in 1980. It is further accepted by the defendant that at the time of death of his father in 1989 their property had been separated. Raj Singh (PW-2), who is the brother of the defendant and also the brother of the husband of the plaintiff has stated that the house was given to the plaintiff- respondent by her mother-in-law vide decree dated 17.7.1995. Therefore, evidently Smt. Dhan Kaur, the mother-in-law of the plaintiff-respondent was the owner of the property after the death of her husband in 1989 and she having transferred the same to the plaintiff-respondent, it cannot be said that there is any infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the R.S.A. No.1377 of 2005 (O&M) [4] Courts below. Besides, no question of law is involved in the present appeal. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed. March 11, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*