RSA No.539 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.539 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: 01.02.2011 Parkash Ram and another ……Appellants Versus Darshan Singh and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the appellants. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed the instant second appeal, having been unsuccessful in both the Courts below. Respondents No.1 to 3-plaintiffs filed suit against appellants and respondent Nos.4 and 5 alleging that plaintiffs are permanent residents of the village. Disputed site is common property of the village community. Common well has also been installed in the suit land by ancestors of the villagers. Entire Harijan Community of the village used to fetch water from the well for drinking purposes. Vacant site adjoining the well is used for common purposes like holding of public meetings, reception of marriage parties, holding of other social and religious functions etc. Harijan community of the village has also built a temple in west northern part of the suit land where Harijans of the village pay obeisance. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 RSA No.539 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - started threatening to appropriate the entire suit land to their exclusive use by raising construction therein. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 3 from raising any construction in the suit land and from appropriating the same in any other manner to their exclusive use and from creating any obstruction in performing worship in the aforesaid temple. Defendants while admitting that plaintiffs are residents of the village broadly denied the other plaint allegations. The defendants pleaded that suit property is not common property. On the other hand, defendant No.1, is owner in possession of the suit property having inherited it from his ancestors. Even defendants No.2 and 3, who are sons of defendant No.1 are unnecessary party to the suit. Gram Panchayat-defendant No.4 is also not necessary party to the suit. The Well is not in the suit property. The well is lying closed and unused. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.2008 decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by defendant Nos.1 to 3 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 24.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that plaintiffs have not alleged that they would suffer any loss or injury RSA No.539 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - and, therefore, plaintiffs have no right to seek injunction regarding suit property. The contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs have specifically alleged that a well exists in the suit land and Harijans of the village fetched water from the well for drinking purposes. It is also pleaded that there is temple in a part of the suit land and Harijans perform worship in the said temple. It is also pleaded that remaining vacant site is used for common purposes including public meetings, marriages, social and religious functions etc. Consequently if defendants No.1 to 3 usurp the suit property by raising construction or in any other manner, obviously the plaintiffs, who are admittedly residents of the village, would be deprived of the user of the suit property which is common property and, therefore, the plaintiffs-would also suffer irreparable loss and injury by such act of the defendants. There is concurrent finding by both the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs. Evidence led by the parties has been analyzed and appreciated by the Courts below. Evidence led by the plaintiffs has been found to be cogent and reliable whereas veracity of defendants’ witnesses was impeached in cross-examination. Concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below is based on proper appreciation and analysis of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons and is fully justified by the evidence on record. The said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Fate of the lis depends on finding of fact. Lower appellate Court is the final Court of fact. On the contrary, RSA No.539 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - there is concurrent finding by both the Courts below which is supported by the material on record. There is, therefore, no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 01.02.2011 A.kaundal