RSA No.1251 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.1251 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 16, 2011 Gurnam Singh .....Appellant v. Paramjit and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.3458-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1251 of 2011 The present appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 20.10.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Jalandhar, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 24.10.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nakodar, vide which suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff along with respondents no.2 and 3 was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, the present suit has been filed by appellant- plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining respondent-defendant from interfering in his possession over the property in dispute on the plea that he had been continuing in possession of the same for the last 20 years. RSA No.1251 of 2011(O&M) -2- On notice being issued, respondent-defendant had taken the plea that he is owner of the property in dispute, which was allotted to his father and that after the death of his father he and other legal heirs became owners of the property in dispute and that present appellant-plaintiff has no concern with the same. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that though appellant-plaintiff is proved to be in possession of the premises in dispute and, however, respondent-defendant did not raise any threat to dispossess them forcibly. Further it has been held that present appellant-plaintiff is in illegal possession of the premises in dispute without any right and that respondent- defendant is owner of the premises in dispute and that the possession is also being taken by respondent-defendant from appellant-plaintiff in due course of law. Appeal filed by present appellant against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that even if he is not owner of the property in dispute, he is having right to seek remedy to protect his possession restraining respondent- defendant from interfering in his possession except in due course of law. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. It is duly proved that respondent-defendant is owner of the premises in dispute. This fact is proved from the entry in the revenue record. A letter bearing No.168 CC dated 15.1.2004 has also been written by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahkot to appellant-plaintiff requiring him to vacate the premises in dispute on the plea that he is in illegal possession of the same. Report has also been made by BDPO that the present appellant RSA No.1251 of 2011(O&M) -3- is in illegal possession of the premises in dispute and however, instead of handing over the possession to respondent-defendant, appellant-plaintiff has filed the present suit. Letter Ex.PW-1/3, written by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Shahkot shows that present appellant-plaintiff is in illegal possession of the premises in dispute. Possession is being taken by respondent-defendant in due course of law. Hence, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that there was no occasion for respondent-defendant to extend any alleged threat for dispossession of present appellant-plaintiff. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned 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. 16.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge