Regular Second Appeal No. 2690 of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 2690 of 2004 Date of Decision: 1.12.2008 Parminder Kaur and Others …Appellants Versus Jaswant Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. R.C.Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.L.Panwar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Two Courts below on the basis of oral evidence examined, had rightly upheld the agreements Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Appreciation and appraisal of evidence by the two Courts below is being assailed in the present appeal. Initially, learned counsel for the appellants stated that Ex.P1 is one sided document and it does not bear the signatures of the one of the appellant Parminder Kaur, mother of appellants No.2 and 3. I have also perused document Ex.P2. It has been executed by Parminder Kaur and it has been signed by her that she had received Rs.30,000/-. A receipt to this effect has been also executed. This agreement Ex.P2 was executed after the Members of the Panchayat had given their award Ex.P1. Having said so, it will be pertinent to recapitulate the facts as Regular Second Appeal No. 2690 of 2004 2 given by the two Courts below. Respondent No.1-plaintiff had instituted a suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellants-defendants from obstructing him from irrigating the land, fully detailed in the head note of the plaint, from tube-well motor connection No. 546. It was stated therein that initially respondent-plaintiff Jaswant Singh and his elder brother Kulwant Singh were the owners in possession of the suit land. After the death of Kulwant Singh, half share was mutated in the name of his wife Parminder Kaur and two sons namely Gurkirpal Singh and Harvnder Singh. Therefore, plaintiff and defendants became co-sharers in the suit land. Tube-well motor connection No. 546 was installed in the suit land 20 years ago. The connection was taken in the name of elder brother Kulwant Singh. After the death of Kulwant Singh, a dispute arose between the parties. To find amicable solution, respectables of the village were appointed arbitrators and they resolved through the writing dated 18.6.1995. Thereafter on 6.5.1997, vide Ex.P2, Parminder Kaur had sold half share of the tube-well connection to the respondent- plaintiff Jaswant Singh for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. It has been recorded in the agreement Ex.P2 that expenses shall be borne by the parties in equal share. A written statement was filed. A preliminary objection was raised that the suit is not maintainable and the respondent-plaintiff has no connection with tube-well meter connection No. 546. It was stated that the same was installed by Kulwant Singh and she has become exclusive owner of the tube-well. Execution of documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 was denied. Regular Second Appeal No. 2690 of 2004 3 Learned trial Court had formulated the issues and the parties had led their evidence. Learned trial Court relied upon the concession given by both the counsel that suit property is a joint ownership. Learned trial Court also relied upon the testimony of Sudagar Singh who was signatory to Ex.P2. It also placed reliance upon the testimony of Ajit Singh who had appended his signatures on Ex.P2. Learned trial Court held that the appellants-defendants had sold half share in the electric motor in dispute to the respondent-plaintiff vide agreement Ex.P2 for a sale consideration of Rs.30,000/- and no evidence has been led by her to disprove Ex.P2 and it was not her case that the same is a forged and fabricated document. Therefore, injunction was granted in favour of respondent- plaintiff. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal was filed. Learned lower Appellate Court held that there is dispute between the parties that originally the electric motor was jointly owned by the parties even though the connection was obtained in the name of Kulwant Singh. It further held that Jaswant Singh, respondent-plaintiff, himself examined as a witness. In cross-examination, no suggestion was given to him that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are forged and fabricated documents. Learned Appellate Court held that the trial Court had rightly placed reliance upon evidence of Ajit Singh and Ajaib Singh, two attesting witness of documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. Therefore, finding of learned trial Court were held to be based upon correct appreciation of evidence. I have heard Mr. R.C.Dogra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.C.L. Panwar, Advocate, appearing for the appellants. He is unable to Regular Second Appeal No. 2690 of 2004 4 assail the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below. It has been stated that Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are silent as to who will share the bill regarding the maintenance and electric bill. The wording of document Ex.P2 is very clear wherein it was stated that the parties shall bear expenses equally. Therefore, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 1, 2008 “DK”