RSA NO.1533 OF 2003 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 16.7.2008 Saroj Nagi ...Appellant VERSUS Anand Parkash and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Ms.Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate for appellant Mr.Gorakh Nath, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Appellant and respondents no.3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the plaintiff- Mrs. Prem Thomas who filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession and ownership of the plaintiff in any manner in house no.7/1-A, Partap Nagar, Ambala City. The plaintiff claimed that she is the widow of one K.S.Thomas and defendants have no right over the suit property. It is further RSA NO.1533 OF 2003 :2: pleaded that K.S.Thomas died on 8.8.1986 leaving behind plaintiff as widow and five daughters, who were later brought on record as L.Rs and are respondents no.3 to 6 herein. It is pleaded that after the death of K.S.Thomas, the plaintiff and five daughters became the owners in possession of the suit property and they are living in the house which is in their exclusive possession. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendants are strangers and have no concern with the suit property or late Sh.K.S.Thomas. The defendants, however, contested the suit and claimed that Sh.K.S.Thomas was also known by the name of Satpal. He was husband of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 is the son of the deceased K.S.Thomas alias Satpal whereas defendant no.2 is daughter-in-law of Sh. K.S.Thomas being wife of defendant no.1. Defendants, however, admitted that the suit property was in the name of Sh.K.S.Thomas but it was a benami transaction. Defendants further stated that late Sh.K.S.Thomas suffered a decree dated 26.9.1985 in favour of the defendants in respect of the suit property and thus the defendants are owners in possession of the suit property. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as alleged in the plaint? CPP 2.Whether the suit is not maintainable? CPD 3.Whether the proper Court Fees has not been affixed on the plaint? OPD RSA NO.1533 OF 2003 :3: 4.Whether the suit has not been properly verified? OPD 5.Relief.” The plaintiff examined one of her daughters Saroj as PW2 who is the appellant herein and supported the version of the plaintiff. The defendants, however, placed on record mark-sheet of matric, DW1/A, discharge certificate of Air Force, DW1/B, Municipal Record, Marriage Registration Certificate of the defendants, besides other evidence. They also relied upon the photographs and negatives of the marriage of the defendants. On the basis of the decree dated 26.9.1985, the trial court came to the conclusion that the relationship between deceased K.S.Thomas alias Satpal and the defendants has been established. Deceased K.S.Thomas admitted the claims of defendant no.1-Anand Parkash in the said suit with respect to the suit property. Consequently, the trial court partly decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 16.9.2000 and set aside the decree dated 26.9.1985 on the ground that the same is not registered. However, the trial court returned a finding that defendants although cannot be injuncted from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, but the defendants are restrained from completely ousting the plaintiff from the suit property in a forcible manner. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial court, two appeals were filed, one by the defendants being Civil Appeal No.147/2000 and the other by the legal heirs of the plaintiff who are appellant and respondents no.3 to 6 herein, being Civil Appeal No.84/2000. RSA NO.1533 OF 2003 :4: Lower appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.8.2002 allowed the appeal filed by the defendants and dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant and respondents no.3 to 6. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that Sh.K.S.Thomas was residing in the house of Anand Parkash and his last rites were also performed by him. It also referred to the earlier decree dated 26.9.1985 which was passed on the basis of the written statement filed by K.S.Thomas during his life time admitting that he is father of Anand Parkash. The lower appellate court also returned a finding that there is no material to show that the decree was obtained by Anand Parkash by impersonating K.S.Thomas. It has also been held that the sale deed dated 1.2.1977 with respect to the suit property was obtained in the name of Anand Parkash and Anand Parkash is the owner. The daughters of Mrs. Prem Thomas, plaintiff were residing outside Ambala and they were not in possession of the suit property. Consequently, the findings of the trial court reversed and the suit dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.8.2002, by the lower appellate court. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to impress upon the court that the findings recorded are contrary to the facts on record. Reference is made to certificate of Higher Secondary Examination of Anand Parkash held in the year 1963 wherein he is shown to be son of Satpal. Both the courts have considered the material on record. After appreciation of the evidence on record, courts below returned a categorical finding that Anand Parkash is RSA NO.1533 OF 2003 :5: the son of deceased K.S.Thomas alias Satpal. While returning this finding, reliance is placed upon the decree dated 26.9.1985 which has attained finality. I find no substantial question of law in the present appeal. No merit. Dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.7.2008 MFK RSA NO.1533 OF 2003 :6: