Regular Second Appeal No.2716 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.7.2010 Manjit Kaur widow of Avtar Singh alias Tara Singh and others ...Appellants Versus Gurdev Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ajay Singla, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present appeal and emanating from the record, is that Avtar Singh alias Tara Singh son of Kehar Singh (since deceased), being represented by his legal representatives and others appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiffs”) filed the present suit seeking a decree of declaration to the effect that they alongwith defendant No.1 are owners and in possession of the land in dispute and the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1996 rendered in the civil suit titled as “Gurdev Kaur vs. Kehar Singh” are illegal, null, void and not binding on their rights, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Gurdev Kaur widow of Hakam Singh son of Kehar Singh and others respondent- defendants (hereinafter to be referred as “the defendants”) from dispossessing them and from alienating the suit property in any manner, inter-alia, pleading that Kehar Singh son of Rattan Singh was the owner and in possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiffs, although they are entitled to the property in dispute, but Kehar Singh suffered a decree dated 14.2.1996 in favour of defendant No.1, depriving them from their legitimate shares. The plaintiffs have challenged the said decree, being illegal, null, void and not binding on their rights. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in the manner Regular Second Appeal No.2716 of 2010 2 indicated here-in-above. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement thereby taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, res- judicata and estoppel etc. On merits, the defendants claimed that the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1996 are legal and valid. Narrating the sequence of events of culmination of the decree, concisely, according to the defendants, they are owners and in possession of the suit land free from all encumbrances. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings of the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the necessary issues for proper adjudication of the case. 4. In order to substantiate their respective pleas, the parties produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.10.2007. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant-plaintiffs filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 16.4.2010. 7. Still aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the appellant-plaintiffs filed the present appeal. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, after going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to me, there is no merit in the appeal. 9. However, the contention of the learned counsel that since the decree dated 14.2.1996 was passed at the back of the plaintiffs, so, the same is not binding Regular Second Appeal No.2716 of 2010 3 on their rights, is not tenable. 10. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that Kehar Singh son of Rattan Singh was the owner. Avtar Singh alias Tara Singh and Hakam Singh sons of Kehar Singh became owners and in possession of land measuring 110 kanals 17 marlas belonging to Kehar Singh by virtue of decree dated 28.2.1972 passed in Civil Suit No.52 of 1972. The same had already attained the finality. Since the revenue authorities refused to recognize them the owners of the land in dispute on the basis of earlier civil court decree and as the mutation was not sanctioned in their favour, so, it necessitated them to file another suit in this relevant connection, which was decreed on 14.2.1996, vide judgment (Ex.D2) and decree (Ex.D3). It is also not a matter of dispute that the judgment and decree dated 14.2.1996 were not challenged by any body in appeal. That means, the subsequent decree of 1996 was based on the earlier decree of 1972, which had already attained the finality and subsequent decree was duly implemented. Therefore, I am of the view that the Courts below have rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiffs in this respect. 11. Moreover, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective and have recorded the concurrent findings of fact that (i) the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the decree dated 14.2.1996 on the ground that it was passed at their back and without affording them the opportunity to contest the said suit; (ii) in fact perusal of the record shows that Avtar Singh and Kehar Singh were defendants to the suit and they contested the same through their counsel and the judgment was passed in their presence and in the presence of their counsel; (iii) the said judgment has attained the finality because no appeal was preferred against it either by Avtar Singh or Kehar Singh; (iv) therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be held entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed by them in the suit as they have miserably failed to establish their right and title in respect of the suit land and (v) it is the settled law that the relief of injunction can Regular Second Appeal No.2716 of 2010 4 only be granted in favour of rightful owner/person, who is holding a lawful title. The entire case revolves around the re-appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. As no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved in this second appeal, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below as contemplated under section 100 CPC, in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs. 13. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 28.7.2010 Judge AS