IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2214 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 06, 2009 Inder Singh and others .....Appellants Versus Amrik Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit filed by plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagadhri on November 11, 2006 whereby defendants No.1 to 4/appellants were directed to hand over the possession of the suit land forthwith to the plaintiffs and defendant No.5-respondent No.3. The contesting respondents were also restrained from interfering in their possession over the suit land in future. Mutation No.149 sanctioned in favour of the contesting respondents on 30.3.1982 by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Jagadhri and subsequent revenue entries in their favour were declared to be wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs and defendant No.5. The contesting defendants challenged the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court by filing an appeal which R.S.A. No. 2214 of 2009 -2- was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri on 11.4.2009. Aggrieved of the same, they are now before this Court in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, the suit land was an evacuee property which was purchased by their mother Smt. Jasbir Kaur in an open auction. Amar Singh, father of Smt. Jasbir Kaur also purchased evacuee property in the same auction. The entire sale price was paid by Smt. Jasbir Kaur but in the revenue record, the name of Amar Singh also came to be recorded. A dispute arose between Smt. Jasbir Kaur and her father Amar Singh over the division of the suit land which led to Smt. Jasbir Kaur filing a civil suit against her father seeking declaration that she was owner in possession of the suit land. The civil suit was decreed on 16.7.1976 on the basis of the compromise and Smt. Jasbir Kaur was declared owner in possession of the suit land. However, during his life time Amar Singh executed a Will dated 1.12.1980 in favour of the defendants/appellants on the basis of which mutation No. 149 was sanctioned and in the revenue record, these defendants were shown as owners in possession of the suit land. The suit land was situated near the other properties of the plaintiffs and they were in possession of the same and, therefore, they never suspected about the change in the revenue entries in favour of the defendants-appellants. However, when the relations between the parties became strained over the division of the property and the defendants-appellants started R.S.A. No. 2214 of 2009 -3- threatening the plaintiffs of dispossessing them from the suit land, the latter had no other option but to file the suit. The defendants-appellants had opposed the suit while pleading in their written statement that the suit land was purchased by Amar Singh himself from his own funds. They denied that Smt. Jasbir Kaur had paid the amount in respect of the suit land. After the purchase of the suit land, Amar Singh became exclusive owner of the same. They denied the fact that Amar Singh suffered any decree in favour of Smt. Jasbir Kaur. According to them, they were in possession of the suit land even during the life time of Amar Singh and continued to be in exclusive possession as owners even after the death of Amar Singh. Moreover, Amar Singh had executed a Will in their favour and, therefore, they had become owners of the suit land. The mutation of inheritance stood sanctioned in their favour. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence led by them, learned trial Court held that mutation No. 149 sanctioned in favour of the defendants-appellants on the basis of Will executed by Amar Singh was not a valid entry. The plea of the defendants-appellants of having become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession was negatived. It was also found as a matter of fact that during the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs-respondents were dispossessed from the suit land and, accordingly, the suit was decreed by directing defendants No.1 to R.S.A. No. 2214 of 2009 -4- 4/appellants to handover the possession of the suit land forthwith to the plaintiffs-respondents and defendant No.5-respondent. The decision of the present appeal would centre around the decree dated 16.7.1976 which was suffered by Amar Singh in favour of Smt. Jasbir Kaur, mother of the plaintiffs. Said decree was never challenged by the defendants. In such a situation, the defendants cannot be heard saying that it had no sanctity in the eyes of law. So long the defendants do not challenge the aforementioned decree, they have to remain bound by the same, more so, when, even according to them, they were successors-in-interest of Amar Singh. Once the decree dated 16.7.1976 is taken to be a valid decree, Amar Singh had lost his entire interest in the suit property and, therefore, could not pass on anything in the suit land to the defendants-appellants on the basis of Will dated 1.12.1980. Mere fact that the plaintiffs-respondents had sought permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants-appellants from interfering in their possession over the suit land but the trial Court directing the defendants-appellants to hand over the possession of the suit land forthwith to them, is no ground to grant any relief to the defendants in the present second appeal when it stands established on the basis of the evidence that the plaintiffs-respondents were dispossessed from the suit property during the pendency of the suit and additional issue No.1 in that regard was framed by the learned trial Court on 17.10.2003. Onus of the said additional issue was R.S.A. No. 2214 of 2009 -5- placed upon the plaintiffs, who on the basis of the evidence led by them were able to discharge the same by establishing that after the filing of the suit, they had been dispossessed from the suit property by the defendants-appellants. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below, are based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. These findings do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or infirmity. No interference can be made in the same and, that too, in a second appeal which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. The various substantial questions of law, as framed by the learned counsel for the appellants, do not arise for consideration. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) July 06, 2009 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO