0 49 4 1 Reclular Second Appeal te 3278 of 2010 LOSMIe IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH eee Date of Decision February l 20110 1 1 Reular Second Apeale 32Z 21010 0 0 Bimla Devi Appellant I eee C5 I VERSUS Z Sadhu Ram and others Respondents f I CORAM HONBLE MRJSTICE MOHINDER PAL C Z 1 INhether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see OO the judgment7 2 To be referredto the Reportersor not7 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reportedin the Digest7 7 Z CL Presentl Mr SanjayMittal Advocate for the appellant MOHINDER PAL Je Blmla Devi IS Ill second appeal aggrieved againstthe judgmentsand decrees passed by the Courts below whereby her suit for injunction restrainingthe from interfering in the ownershipand possession of the over the suit Iand beingcoesharer and as a consequentialrelief for restraining KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.21 10: 57 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 50 1 1 4 2 gular Second al No 3278 of 2010 lOSMI the from raising any type of construction overthe suit Iand ortn case the any constructlon the pendencyof the suit the same may be 1 and suit Iand be restored to the was dismissed 0 0 The trial Court after framing issues arisingout of the I of the parties and recording their evidence dismissed t5 I the suit filed bythe plaintiffThe appeal preferredby the plaintiff the judgmentand decree passed by the trial Court was Z dismissed by the Iower appellateCourt The findings recorded C by both the Courts below arethe findingsof fact It could not I be out by the Iearned counsel for the appellant that t0 Z such findings are based on of evidence or that materialevldence has not been taken into consideration The case m of the before the Courts below was that W2 Z they had constructedtheir houses on the suit Iand and were Om therein for the Iasl 2025 years The plaintiffhad failed to prove and establish on record her possession over the suit Iand at the time of filingthe instant suit The construction raised by the defendants on the suit Iand already existed The plaintiff soughtinjunction against cosharers who were In exclusive of the suit Iand The trial Court had also appointeda Local Commissioner vide order dated 32001 and he was directed to submit his report regardingexisting state of affairs As per report of the Locai Commissioner three rooms and a KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.21 10: 57 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 51 4 1 4 e3e SecApI Noe 3278 of 2010 lOSMle kitchen had been constructed recently No mason or Iabourer was and no construction was going on at that time At the time of filingof the instant suit it was not the case of the 1 plaintiff that she had raised this construction Besides no application was made bythe plaintiffalongwith the suit so as to restraln the 0 0 defendantsfrom interfering in the possessionof the plaintiffover I these threerooms kitchen etc However for the first time while 0 I in Court as PW 1 plaintiff Bimla Devi claimedthat she hadconstructed three rooms etc after one month of the purchase Z of the property However as per sale deed Exhibit P11 the C had purchasedthe share of Iand exclusivelyin possession I of the defendants Thus the plaintiffand defendants were coesharers Z Itl the suit Iand As per the case of the defendants they were residlng in the houses made on the disputedIand for the Iast 20125 years The plaintiff failed to prove on record that during 7 Z the pendencyof the suit the defendants had raised construction over the sult Iand On the other hand as per report of the Local Commissloner the construction was in existence at the time of inspection Besides accordlnglo the report Exhibit DW lIBI of the buildlngexpert the construction was more than 20 yearsold It was in view of the above facts that both the Courts below held that the plaintiff failed to prove her exclusive possessionover the suit Iand Under the circu msta nces I do not find any patent illegalityor irregularity in the findingsrecorded by the Courts below KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.21 10: 57 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 52 4e RegularSecond Amal Noe 3278 LO which may glve rise to any substantial questlonof Iaw in the present appeal Resultantly this appeal IS herebydismissed being without any merit 1 Ir 9 p4 1 1 1 MOHINDER PAL 0 FebruaryI7 2011 JUDGE 1 0 ak 1 I C5 2541 1 r hJ I Z 7 Z KUMAR SURESH SHAM LAL 2012.11.21 10: 57 True Scanned Copy of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document