RSA No.2305 of 2006 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision:15.01.2008. Fazal Ali and others ... Appellants Versus Gulzar and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mr.Vimal Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellants. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): This is defendants Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the leaned Courts below. The plaintiff-appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming to in possession of the property marked by letters ABCDEFGHIJKLM in red colour in the site plan Ex.P-1. It was alleged in the plaint that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 are the real brothers, whereas defendant No.2 is the mother of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that vide agreement dated 21.02.1993 the suit property was partitioned and a sum of Rs.12,000/- was paid to defendant No.1 for relinquishment of the possession of share of the part of the suit land. The plaintiffs also tried to explain their possession over the land alleging that they place cow-dung-cakes etc. over the suit land and are in constructive possession. The defendants, however, disputed and denied the ownership RSA No.2305 of 2006 -2- and possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute. The defendants have also stated that the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the suit. The suit was also stated to be barred by time. Validity of the agreement is also disputed for want of registration. The defendants have also claimed that the suit property belongs to Nathu Ram, father of defendant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of defendant No.2. During his life time, Nathu Ram separated the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 and they are living separately since then and constructed their separate houses. It is also alleged that Nathu Ram had bequeathed his entire property by way of registered will dated 27.1.1982 in favour of defendant No.1. Nathu Ram died in the year 1984 and defendant No.1 is in exclusive possession of the suit property. Agreement dated 21.02.1993 relied upon by the plaintiffs is stated to be forged and fabricated. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are exclusive owners in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is not proved, whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the suit is hopelessly barred by time? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiffs have concealed RSA No.2305 of 2006 -3- the true and material facts from the Court? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs under Section 35-A CPC? OPD 8. Relief. The learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the property in dispute and the property is in possession of defendant No.1 on the basis of the Will. The learned trial Court referred to the plaint wherein the plaintiffs claimed to be in constructive possession-meaning thereby that the actual physical possession is not with them. The learned trial Court also returned a finding that the plaintiffs are neither owners nor in possession nor co-sharers in the suit property and defendant No.1 is the owner in possession of the property in dispute on the basis of the Will. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.03.2003. Aggrieved of the same, the plaintiffs-appellant herein filed Civil Appeal No.96/CA/2003 in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhari. The leaned Lower Appellate Court while examining the evidence, concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide its judgment and decree dated 19.07.2005. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and RSA No.2305 of 2006 -4- perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the possession of the property in dispute is with the appellants. However, this submission is contrary to the facts on record and the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below. No substantial question of law arises in the appeal. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 15.01.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO