Regular Second Appeal No.3048 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3048 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 18.7.2011 Ram Kishan ...Appellant Versus Ram Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The challenge in the instant regular second appeal is to the judgment and decree dated 23.3.2007 of the trial Court and the judgment and decree dated 17.3.2010 of the Ist appellate Court, by virtue of which, the suit filed by plaintiffs Sardar Singh son of Dilsukh and Matadin (since deceased), being represented by his LRs. Ram Kishan and others (for short “the plaintiffs”) was dismissed. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of declaration to the effect that mutation No.931 dated 8.11.1983 and subsequent entries on the basis of civil Court decree dated 18.5.1983 are illegal, null, void and not bindings on their rights. They have also challenged the decree dated 29.10.1994 passed in civil suit titled as “Hanuman Vs. Nihal”, with respect to the land in dispute and sale deed bearing No.1243 dated 26.7.1995 as described in the heading of the plaint. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities and on ultimate analysis of the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs, by virtue of impugned judgment dated 23.3.2007, the operative part of which is (para 17) as under:- “Bare perusal of the evidence led by the plaintiffs shows that there was no anomaly in the compromise decree dated 18.5.83 Ex.P5. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs stressed only on this point that possession of the Regular Second Appeal No.3048 of 2010 -2- land measuring 9 kanal 5 marla out of killa no.29/9 given to the defendant to eastern side. But he has failed to satisfy the court from which documents he stated that it was settled between the parties that possession of land measuring 9 kanal 5 marla situated in the eastern side would be given to the defendants no.1 and 2. I have perused compromise Ex.P4 which was actually Ex.PX in case titled as Ram Kumar Vs. Dil Sukh and noted that there was no such type of term and conditions in compromise Ex.P4 that possession of land measuring 9 kanal 5 marla would be given by Dil Sukh which situated in the eastern side. Consequently, mutation no.931 Ex.P9 was sanctioned. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs has failed to show to the court what is deficiency in the sanctioning of mutation no.931 Ex.P9. Nor the evidence of the plaintiffs are cleared on this point that there was anomaly in sanctioning of mutation no.931.” 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, Sardar Singh and Ram Kishan and others, LRs of Matadin plaintiffs, filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 17.3.2010, which, in substance, is (para 10) as under:- “No illegality could be pointed out in the compromise, by the appellants. The same was acted upon without any demur from any quarter and it therefore does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiffs to say that by mistake the khasra numbers given to defendants No.1 to 3 were not entered in the compromise. They rather have no locus standi to put up any challenge to the compromise and the consequent mutation. Also it may be mentioned at the cost of repetition that their suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and no date of knowledge was pleaded or proved. Even otherwise no ground existed in favour of the plaintiffs to challenge the abovesaid documents. The plaintiffs were parties to the partition proceedings which were initiated much before filing of the present suit but the plaintiffs still did not file the suit earlier.” 5. Appellant Ram Kishan son and LR of Matadin plaintiff No.2 still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and filed the present appeal. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire Regular Second Appeal No.3048 of 2010 -3- matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant did not point out as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are illegal and warrant any interference. Moreover, both the Courts below have 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, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has recorded the afore-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent 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 by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this respect. 8. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Courts below in this regard. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in this relevant connection, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 9. Meaning thereby, the entire matter revolves around the re- appreciation and re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. Regular Second Appeal No.3048 of 2010 -4- 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 18.7.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No