R.S.A. No. 686 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 686 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.2.2009 Labh Kaur and others ....Appellants Versus Devinder Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. H.R.Nohria, Advocate for the appellants. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment of the learned first Appellate Court dated 8.11.2008. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondent on the averments that they are owners in possession of the suit property, which has been detailed in the suit, on the basis of a family settlement dated 18.5.1981 scribed by one Gurbax Singh Duggal, Deed-Writer at the instance of the respondent and signed by Surinder Singh, predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiffs and defendant in the presence of witnesses who also attested the same. It is further pleaded that they are continuing in possession of the suit property ever since 18.5.1981 and that the respondent is trying to interfere in their peaceful possession R.S.A. No. 686 of 2009 (O&M) -2- without any legal right. The respondent denied the existence of a family settlement and contended that the partition proceedings are still pending inter se between the parties and that the family settlement which was referred to by the plaintiffs/appellants was merely a paper transaction as no one had acted upon it. He denied the case of the appellants and pleaded that he was entitled to his share in the suit property. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession over the property in dispute?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts from the Court?OPD 4. Whether the agreement dated 18.5.91 had not been executed by all the co-owners, if so its effect?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous?OPD 6. Relief. Ultimately on the basis of evidence before it, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the appellants. In appeal preferred by the respondent, the findings of the learned trial Court were upset. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that a finding has been recorded regarding partition proceedings which are going on inter se between the parties. The family settlement referred to by the R.S.A. No. 686 of 2009 (O&M) -3- appellant was signed only by the appellants and the other co-sharers were not the signatory to it. The factum of the partition proceedings going on inter se between the parties leaves no room for doubt that the family settlement pleaded by the appellants was never acted upon. In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court cannot be termed to be perverse or incorrect and do not warrant any interference in the regular second appeal. The appellants have also failed to prove their possession as well. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed as it does not involve any substantial question of law. 10.2.2009 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss