R. S. A. No. 1920 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1920 of 2010 Date of Decision : January 25, 2011 The State of Haryana and another .... Appellants Vs. Prem Nath Gupta and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants – State of Haryana and Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, having failed in both the courts below, have filed the instant second appeal. Respondents – Prem Nath Gupta and Inderjit Gupta (both brothers) filed suit against State of Haryana through Chief Secretary, District Red Cross Society, Narnaul and Superintendent of Police, Narnaul. However, District Red Cross Society – defendant no.2 was deleted from the array of defendants in the trial court. The suit proceeded against defendants no.1 and 3, who are the appellants herein. R. S. A. No. 1920 of 2010 2 The plaintiffs alleged that the suit property, being evacuee property, vested in custodian and it was then allotted to Dharam Chand. On the death of Dharam Chand, the suit property devolved upon Sahib Ram @ Sahib Dayal, who sold it to plaintiffs' brother Ravinder Nath Gupta vide sale deed dated 06.08.1987. Plaintiffs are successors of Ravinder Nath Gupta and are now owners in possession of the suit property. Defendants have no concern with the same. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making unauthorized construction over the suit property and from interfering in peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and from taking possession thereof forcibly and illegally because defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. Defendant no.1 admitted in the written statement that the suit property had been allotted to Dharam Chand, but defendants have no knowledge of the death of Dharam Chand or of further sale of the suit property. Defendant no.3, however, pleaded that defendant no.3 is owner in possession of the suit property. Remains of old building of defendant no.3 are there at the spot. Police Department was in possession of the suit property. Plaintiffs, on the basis of forged documents, wanted to take illegal possession of the suit property. Defendant no.3 also claimed title on the R. S. A. No. 1920 of 2010 3 basis of adverse possession. Some other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2005, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by defendants no.1 and 3 stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul, vide judgment and decree dated 25.09.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no.1 and 3 have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. It is surprising that defendant no.1 – State of Haryana through Chief Secretary and defendant no.3 – Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, by filing separate written statements, have taken contradictory stand. It depicts that there is something basically wrong with the stand of the defendants. It is surprising that State authorities are taking contradictory stand. However, it is manifest from the evidence on record that defendant no.3 took a patently false stand. Defendant no.1 rightly admitted that suit property was evacuee property and it was allotted Dharam Chand, as pleaded by the plaintiffs. However, defendant no.3 wrongly denied this fact. There is, however, documentary evidence even of the defendants themselves depicting that suit property was evacuee property and it was allotted to Dharam Chand. Plaintiffs have led evidence to depict that Dharam Chand R. S. A. No. 1920 of 2010 4 was succeeded by his nephew (cousin's son) Sahib Ram, who sold the suit property to plaintiffs' brother Ravinder Nath Gupta vide sale deed dated 06.08.1987 and plaintiffs have succeeded Ravinder Nath Gupta and have become owners in possession of the suit property. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiffs have not led any documentary evidence to depict that Sahib Ram was related to Dharam Chand and was his legal heir. The contention is misconceived and unacceptable. The plaintiffs have led ample oral evidence to prove relationship of Sahib Ram with Dharam Chand and to prove that Sahib Ram inherited the suit property from Dharam Chand. In this regard, there are statements of Madan Gopal (PW-4), B. D. Kataria (PW-9) and Tulsi Ram (PW-10) besides the testimony of plaintiff Prem Nath Gupta as PW-11. All these statements stand unrebutted. Veracity of these statements could not be impeached in their cross-examination. Consequently, it stands proved that Sahib Ram was related to Dharam Chand and inherited the suit property from him. There is concurrent finding of fact to this effect by both the courts below. The said finding is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal. Moreover, there is no evidence on the contrary led by the defendants. In addition to it, defendants in the written statements, did not even specifically plead that Sahib Ram was not successor of Dharam Chand, R. S. A. No. 1920 of 2010 5 although plaintiffs specifically pleaded in the plaint that Sahib Ram succeeded Dharam Chand. Thus, examined from any angle, the aforesaid contention, raised by counsel for the appellants, cannot be accepted. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. January 25, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE