IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 4070 of 2002 Date of Decision: 22.10.2008 Madan Lal ...Appellant Versus Lachhman and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2002 passed by the lower appellate court affirming that of the trial court dated 6.3.2000 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, was dismissed. The facts as narrated in the plaint are that the plaintiff was owner in possession of House No.7 along with its courtyard, situated in Ward No.13, Sadhaura, District Yamunanagar from the time of his ancestors and had been using the same for the residential purposes. The main entrance of the house abuts in an open space, which was being used by him as courtyard. It was pleaded that the courtyard was also being used for placing fuel wood, bricks and concrete malba. It was further pleaded that the entrance to the house of the brother of the plaintiff was also through the suit property and the parnalas and the R.S.A. No. 4070 of 2002 -2- windows of the house of the plaintiffs were also towards that courtyard. The defendants threatened the plaintiff to encroach upon the suit property and to interfere in his possession which gave rise to the filing of the suit. The suit was resisted by the defendants by filing a joint written statement and raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the suit property was a vacant plot previously owned by Smt. Kela Wati who had since expired and the defendants were the only legal heirs of the deceased being her husband's brother's son. It was further pleaded that after the death of Smt. Kela Wati, the defendants gave the suit property to the biradari for construction of a Dharamshala. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed various issues and on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit property. It was further held that the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that the same was not maintainable. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 6.3.2000 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.2002 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant could not show that the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below suffer from any misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No illegality or perversity R.S.A. No. 4070 of 2002 -3- could be found in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that the suit property was situated within the municipal limits but the plaintiff had not produced any record of the Municipal Committed or any other documentary evidence to establish his ownership over the suit property. It was further recorded by the courts below that while appearing as PW4, the plaintiff had not uttered a single word that he was the owner of the suit property. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. October 22, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE