Regular Second Appeal No.812 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.812 of 2010 Date of Decision:-27.7.2011 Ram Chander and another ...Appellants Versus Manga and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Kartar Singh Malik, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 into focus and having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs (for short “the plaintiffs”), to my mind, as no substantial question of law is involved, therefore, there is no merit in the instant regular second appeal in this context. 2. As is evident from the record that the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs, restraining Manga and others respondent-defendants (for brevity “the defendants) from interfering in their possession was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 20.10.2008, which, in substance, is (para 23) as under:- “Therefore, to conclude it has been proved that land of plot in dispute is in existence at Village Uchana Kalan described in red colour in the site plan Ex.P1 and further elaborated in the head note of the plaint. But plaintiff has failed to prove his exclusive ownership and possession over the plot in dispute. Although written partition Ex.D1, relied upon by defendants, is not an admissible evidence to establish alleged partition of plot in dispute Regular Second Appeal No.812 of 2010 -2- in six shares but this piece of document is a relevant piece of evidence for collateral purposes to establish joint possession of the parties. So far as element of ownership is concerned, it has not been proved by afore- discussed evidence of the parties. Present is a suit for injunction and for that purpose element of determining possession is a precedence to see whether a person in exclusive possession is being threatened to be dispossessed forcibly and illegally. In the case in hand, this court has come to the conclusion that parties to the suit are in joint possession of the land of plot in dispute. Plaintiff has not been able to prove his exclusive possession over a particular share and as such plaintiff has failed to make out his case to see issuance of injunction from Civil Court against defendants. Hence, issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff.” 3. Not only that, the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed as well, by way of impugned judgment dated 12.9.2009, wherein it was observed (para 21) as under:- “When the plaintiff has failed to prove his exclusive possession as owner and it has been conceded by the plaintiff himself by putting suggestions to Ram Phal (DW-2) that the defendants are not strangers but are close relations of the plaintiff having common ancestors, learned lower Court was right in verdicting that the property was not exclusively owned and possessed by the plaintiff, but was in possession of the plaintiff as a co- possessor. The parties could not prove ownership. The suit is for seeking decree of permanent injunction. Exclusive possession is the hallmark and to proceed to grant relief of injunction, when there is no exclusive possession of the plaintiff, threat of forcible and illegal dispossess at the hands of the defendants, thus, also become inconsequential. The plaintiff being in joint possession of the suit property is not entitled to seek injunction against a co- possessors. Learned lower Court thus was right in adjudicating issue no.1 against the plaintiff. The said findings being correct on facts and in law, are affirmed.” 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiffs did not point out any material, much less cogent, to show as to how and in what manner any interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 5. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the Regular Second Appeal No.812 of 2010 -3- right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, both the courts below have recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, 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 appellants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this regard. 6. As neither any substantial question of law is involved, nor any other meaningful argument has been raised on behalf of learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings of the Courts below in this respect, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 27.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No