IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2251 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: October 4, 2011. Hari Ram. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Ram Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the appellant. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 14.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 24.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. RSA No.2251 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, parties are closely related. Appellant-plaintiff is son of respondent-defendant no.3 –Ram Rakha and brother of respondents- defendants no.1 and 2. He has filed suit for permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the premises in dispute and seeking injunction against his father and brothers from interfering in his possession. On notice being issued, suit was contested by respondents-defendants by taking the plea that respondent-defendant no.3 had already divided the entire property amongst all his sons in the year 1988 and that respondent-defendant no.1 was given two constructed rooms. Respondent-defendant no.2 was given open space adjoining the said two rooms besides one room in village Bhud Kalan. The present appellant-plaintiff was given two rooms in village Bhud Kalan and that respondent-defendant no.3 kept two rooms with him. Respondent-defendant no.3 was living with his wife in Chhan in village Bhud Kalan. It has been further submitted that the appellant-plaintiff is having no right, title or interest in the property in village Malikpur Khadar. On appreciation of evidence, suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that he is employed as Assistant Lineman with Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and is residing in village Bhud Kalan and that taking the 2 RSA No.2251 of 2011 benefit of his absence from village Malikpur Khadar, he is being illegally dispossessed by his father and brothers from the property in dispute. However, both the courts after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that father of appellant-plaintiff has already divided amongst his sons and himself the property situated in village Malikpur Khadar and Bhud Kalan. Appellant-plaintiff was given property in village Bhud Kalan. Hence, it cannot be said that he is having his share in property in Abadi Deh of village Malikpur Khadar. It has also been admitted by appellant-plaintiff himself that he has been given property in village Bhud Kalan. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by both the courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) October 4, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3