RSA No.2704 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2704 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 8, 2011 Assa Ram .....Appellant v. Vidur Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 11.2.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide which appeal filed by present appellant against judgment and decree, dated 15.1.2009, passed by learned trial Court was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below. Admitted facts are that respondents-defendants are owners of the premises in dispute and present appellant has been continuing in possession of the same. A suit was filed by respondents-defendants for possession, whereas another suit was filed by present appellant for permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in his possession over the property in dispute. Learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and decided the same vide a single judgment RSA No.2704 of 2011(O&M) -2- vide which suit filed by present appellant was dismissed, whereas the suit filed by respondents-defendants was decreed by holding that relationship of tenant and landlord between the parties is not proved, as per the plea of present appellant-plaintiff. Appellant filed only one appeal against the said consolidated judgment passed by learned trial Court. It has been observed by learned first appellate Court that appellant should have been filed two separate appeals and that one appeal against the judgment delivered in the two suits is not maintainable by placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Harjeet Singh and others v. Mehar Singh 2010(4) CCC 568. However, the appeal was also decided on merit. In my view the first appellate Court has rightly observed that appellant should have filed two separate appeals. On this point the only plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that separate decree-sheet was not prepared by learned trial Court in the other connected suit. However, preparation of decree-sheet is only a ministerial act. Even if this plea is taken to be correct, appellant could have requested the Court to prepare a decree-sheet. Separate appeal was not filed even after this fact was pointed out by learned first appellate Court. Rather an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed seeking permission of the Court to present two separate memo of parties. However, the same was rightly not entertained by learned first appellate Court as no such permission of the Court was required for filing of the appeal. On merits the only point argued by learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant has been able to prove that he is in possession as tenant by producing copies of house tax assessment register Exs.P2 to P4, RSA No.2704 of 2011(O&M) -3- which were ignored by the Courts below. However, in my view it has been rightly observed by Courts below that factum of tenancy cannot be proved merely on the basis of house tax assessment register, Exs.P2 to P4, which were made at the instance of appellant unilaterally. Pleadings of appellant are very vague regarding creation of alleged tenancy. No evidence has been adduced regarding payment of rent except his own statement. Neither any rent receipt has been produced nor any witness has been examined. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the Courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 8.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge