RSA No.2000 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.2000 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Brahm Parkash and others .....Appellants v. Smt.Dhan Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellants. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 19.2.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which appeal filed against judgment and decree dated 23.8.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, partly decreeing the suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned Courts below. Respondents-plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration that they are co-owners in possession of the suit property mentioned in para no.1 of the plaint, shown by letters `ABCDEF' in red colour in the site plan attached to the plaint and that notice issued by respondent -defendant no.1 is illegal and void with consequential relief of injunction restraining respondents- defendants no.1 and 2 from dispossessing them from the suit property. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that respondents- plaintiffs had failed to prove that they are co-owners of the suit property RSA No.2000 of 2011(O&M) -2- and, however, as they have been able to show their established possession over the suit property, suit filed by them was partly decreed to the extent that respondents-defendants no.1 and 2 were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land, except in due course of law. Against the said judgment and decree, three appeals were filed, i.e., one by the present appellants, another by respondents-defendant no.2 and the third one by respondents-plaintiffs. However, all the three appeals were dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- defendants that respondents-plaintiffs are having no right in the property in dispute and hence, they cannot seek any injunction protecting their unauthorised possession. It has also been contended that learned first appellate Court by observing that oral evidence adduced by respondent- plaintiff is contradictory has committed illegality in granting injunction in his favour. However, even the present appellants are also having no right in the property in dispute. Possession of the respondents-plaintiffs over the property has been held by both the Courts below. Suit has been decreed only to the extent that respondents-defendants no.1 and 2 have been restrained from interfering in the possession except in due course of law. Plea has also been taken by present appellants in the written statement that a petition under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act, 1961, was already filed and the same was pending before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon. Plea was also raised on behalf of the appellants-defendants before the Courts below that plaintiffs being in unauthorised possession are not entitled to injunction. RSA No.2000 of 2011(O&M) -3- 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 this 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. 21.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge