Regular Second Appeal No.1591 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1591 of 2009 Date of Decision:-17.8.2011 Satnam Singh ---Appellant Versus Rajinder Singh and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Bhag Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.C.L.Verma, Advocate for respondent Nos1 and 2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) The contour of the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Satnam Singh son of Mohan Singh appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Rajinder Singh son of Gopal Singh and others respondent-defendants (for short “the defendants”), from dispossessing him from the Bara in question, measuring 2 Biswas, comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.145 min/212 min, Khasra No.234 min (4-12), situated within the abadi deh of Mauza Kurari, HB No.394, Tibi Mohalla, Kalka, District Panchkula, inter-alia pleading that he (plaintiff) is owner and in possession of the plot in dispute, since the time of his forefathers. He is using the same for the purpose of tethering cattle and preparing the cow dung cakes etc. The defendants have no right, title or interest in it, but they have hatched a conspiracy to forcibly and illegally dispossess him and to encroach upon the suit property. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants seeking a decree for permanent injunction, in the manner indicated hereinbefore. 2. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit and filed their joint written Regular Second Appeal No.1591 of 2009 -2- statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff. The case set up by the contesting defendants, in brief in so far as relevant, was that the property in dispute is ancestral property of defendant No.1. He had entered into an agreement to sell the same to defendant No.2. Neither the plaintiff nor his ancestors have any right, title or interest in it. The version, put forth by the plaintiff, was stated to be cooked up and made up (false) story, in order to encroach upon the suit property. It will not be out of place to mention here that the contesting defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land?OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 3. Relief. 4. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of judgment and decree dated 13.10.2008. 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the contesting defendants No.1 and 2 filed the appeal, which was accepted and the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the 1st Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 6.4.2009 7. The appellant-plaintiff did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree of the 1st Appellate Court and preferred the present regular second appeal. That is how, I am seized of the matter. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. Regular Second Appeal No.1591 of 2009 -3- 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the appellant-plaintiff is in long possession of the suit property, so, the Ist Appellate Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing his suit, sans merit. 10. As is evident from the record that plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants on the ground that he is owner and in possession of the disputed portion and was using the same for tethering cattle and preparing the cow dung cakes etc. The defendants want to illegally dispossess him from the property in dispute. The defendants have stoutly denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff and claimed that the suit property is ancestral property of defendant No.1. In that eventuality, a very very heavy burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove his case and he cannot depend upon the weaknesses in the evidence of the defendants. He has miserably failed in this relevant connection. He did not produce any document of title or any evidence much less cogent on record to prove his possession over the property in dispute. On the contrary, Ex.D3 is a copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04, indicating that all the co-sharers, including Rajinder Singh defendant No.1, are owners and in possession of the suit property, comprised in Khasra No.234. 11. As is clear, the first appellate Court, after considering the entire evidence brought on record, has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiff, by way of impugned judgment, the operative part of which is as under:- “Ex.D3 is the copy of jamabandi for the year 2003-04 showing khasra number 234 to be owned by abadi deh and possessed by cosharers including defendant No.1 Rajinder, which was given on rent to others. Ex.D2 is an agreement/receipt dated 3.2.1996 executed by defendant no.1 Rajinder in favour of Prem, defendant No.2 in respect of land measuring 1½ biswas for a sum of Rs.21,000/-. The amount of Rs.5,000/- was taken as earnest money. DW1 Ram Chand has asserted his possession over the suit property since his forefathers as tenant under actual owner namely Gopal Singh, father of defendant No.1 Rajinder Singh. He has deposed that later on he entered into an agreement with present owner, Rajinder Singh for purchase of the suit property on 3.2.1996. Needless to say that Regular Second Appeal No.1591 of 2009 -4- these facts have been supported by DW2 also. The above held discussed evidence goes a long way to show that plaintiff has not been successful to prove his possession on the suit property and hence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on issue No.1 stand reversed, holding that plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership and possession over the suit land. Once that finding is recorded on issue No.1, issue No.2 automatically stands decided against the plaintiff because the plaintiff, not being owner in possession of the land in dispute, the present suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable. As a result, I find merit in this appeal and accept the same with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction stands dismissed. Decree- sheet be drawn. Trial court record be sent back. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” 12. Meaning thereby, the Ist appellate Court has taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, it has recorded the above-mentioned findings of fact. Such pure findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree of Ist appellate Court by the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. 13. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgment and decree of Ist appellate Court are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant direction. 14. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Ist appellate Court in this respect. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on his behalf, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Ist appellate Court. Thus, the impugned judgment Regular Second Appeal No.1591 of 2009 -5- and decree of Ist appellate Court are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 17.8.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No