R.S.A. No. 3593 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3593 of 2007 Date of Decision: 30.10.2008 Dr. Partap Chand Kapoor ...Appellant. Versus Bhushan Kumar and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the caveator- respondents No.5 and 6. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Having failed before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of the present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, affirming that of the trial court dated 8.2.2005 vide which the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction, was decreed. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of a shop situated at Old Court Road, Nawanshahr, fully detailed in the R.S.A. No. 3593 of 2007 -2- head note of the plaint and as a consequential relief, he sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession overthere, on the averments that previously, Smt. Kartar Kaur was owner of the suit property and the plaintiff was in possession thereof as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.20/- w.e.f. 25.1.1963. On 23.1.1970, Smt. Kartar Kaur mortgaged the suit property for a consideration of Rs.5000/- with the plaintiff and executed a writing with the stipulation that in case she did not pay back the mortgaged amount within a period of three years, the plaintiff would become owner of the same and the writing would be considered as a sale deed. It was further pleaded that Smt. Kartar Kaur had failed to pay back the said amount within the stipulated period, therefore, the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, defendants No.2 to 4, on the basis of a sale deed allegedly executed by said Kartar Kaur in their favour were declaring themselves to be the owners of the suit property. It was also pleaded that the alleged sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 had not affected the rights of the plaintiff as he had become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession because he had been using the same without any interference for the last several years. The plaintiff requested the defendants to admit his claim but they refused which gave rise to the filing of the suit. Upon notice, two sets of written statements but on the similar lines were filed by defendants No.1 and 2 raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that neither Kartar Kaur was owner of the suit property nor she mortgaged the same with the plaintiff. R.S.A. No. 3593 of 2007 -3- The claim of the plaintiff that he had become owner of the suit property had also been denied. However, the factum of the plaintiff being tenant in the shop on payment of Rs.20/- per month was admitted. It was further pleaded that defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of his brother at his request and he had every right to raise the construction on the suit property. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial court, on appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff had established his lawful possession over the suit property being tenant but had failed to prove the factum of title on the basis of the alleged agreement or by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 8.2.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of granting permanent injunction and restrained the defendants from interfering and forcibly dispossessing him from the suit property except in due course of law and dismissed the suit qua the prayer for a decree for declaration. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the lower appellate court which vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.2008, affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant raised almost the same grounds to establish the case of the plaintiff as had been ventilated before the courts below, but he has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below R.S.A. No. 3593 of 2007 -4- warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The trial court had recorded a finding that the defendants had proved by leading cogent and unrebutted evidence that they had purchased the suit property from the previous owner who was recorded as such in the revenue record. The courts below have recorded a finding of fact that defendants No.2 to 4 were true owners of the suit property on the basis of the jamabandi for the year 1958-59, Ex.DX, and the sale deed, Ex.D1, which they had successfully proved by leading a cogent evidence. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this second appeal for determination of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. October 30, 2008 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE