Regular Second Appeal No.1497 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1497 of 2005 Date of Decision:-11.8.2011 Rajinder Singh and another ...Appellants Versus Shakuntla (died) now through LRs and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Sunder Dass son of Keshar Dass (since deceased), now being represented through her legal representatives, respondent Nos.1 to 4-plaintiffs (for brevity “the original plaintiff”), filed the suit against Rajinder Singh son of Harsharan Singh and his wife Kashmir Kaur appellant-defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Smt.Savita Rani daughter of Har Parkash, proforma respondent No.5-defendant No.3 (for short “the defendants”) and sought a decree for possession of the disputed portion, denominated by letters ABCD, shown in red colour (with boundaries) in the site plan (Ex.P1), forming part of the property, bearing No.B1-SI/89-90, situated within the municipal limits of village Hariana, Tehsil and Distt.Hoshiarpur, after removing the super-structure on it raised by the defendants. 2. The case set up by the original plaintiff, in brief in so far as relevant, was that one Sahib Ditta Mal purchased the suit property from the Government, by means of sale certificate (Ex.P3). Sahib Ditta Mal had sold the portion in dispute to the original plaintiff, by way of registered sale deed dated 16.12.1964 (Ex.P2). Regular Second Appeal No.1497 of 2005 -2- In this manner, the original plaintiff became owner and in possession and had constructed the shop over the property in dispute. According to the original plaintiff that contesting defendant Nos.1 and 2, in connivance with defendant No.3, fabricated a false sale deed dated 30.5.1995 (Ex.D1), allegedly executed by defendant No.3 in their (defendant Nos.1 and 2) favour, without any legal right. Savita Rani (defendant No.3) was neither the owner nor in possession of the suit property. She did not have any alienable right in it. The defendants have illegally raised the construction over the disputed property in his absence, without any legal right. As soon as, he returned to the village and made an inquiry, then it revealed that the defendants have manipulated the indicated forged sale deed (Ex.D1) and illegally raised the construction over the property in dispute. In all, the original plaintiff claimed that he was owner and construction raised by the defendants over the disputed portion is illegal. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, he (original plaintiff) filed the suit for a decree of possession against the defendants, in the manner described hereinbefore. 3. The defendants contested the suit. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed their written statement, inter-alia pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the suit, limitation, Court fee, jurisdiction of the civil Court, cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded that they are the bonafide purchasers from Savita Rani (defendant No.3). 4. Likewise, defendant No.3 filed her separate written statement, explaining that one Nirmal Devi widow of Tarsem Lal was the owner and she sold the suit property to defendant No.3, by virtue of sale deed and she further sold the same to Kashmir Kaur (defendant No.2). The defendants have denied the ownership of the original plaintiff of the disputed portion. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. Controverting the allegations of the written statements and reiterating Regular Second Appeal No.1497 of 2005 -3- the pleadings contained in the plaint, the plaintiffs filed the replication. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for proper adjudication of the case. 6. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded stands, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 7. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, by means of impugned judgment and decree dated 7.3.2001. 8. Aggrieved by the decision of the trial Court, the defendants No.1 and 2 filed the appeal, which was dismissed with costs as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 29.1.2005. 9. They still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-defendants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 11. As is evident from the record that the plaintiffs filed the suit for a decree of possession against the defendants, on the basis of title, inter-alia pleading that Sahib Ditta Mal became the owner of the property in dispute, vide sale certificate (Ex.P3). He sold the same to the original plaintiff, by way of sale deed (Ex.P2). In this manner, the original plaintiff became the owner and in possession of the suit property. On the contrary, the defendants claimed that Nirmal Devi widow of Tarsem Lal was the owner and she sold the property in dispute to defendant No.3, who was stated to have further sold the same to defendant No.2. 12. Having completed all the codal formalities and taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, the trial Court recorded the finding of fact that it stands proved on record that Sahib Ditta Mal purchased the suit property, vide sale certificate (Ex.P3) from the Rehabilitation Department. He sold the same including the disputed portion, described in the site plan (Ex.P1) to Regular Second Appeal No.1497 of 2005 -4- original plaintiff, by way of sale deed (Ex.P2). On the contrary, the defendants have miserably failed to prove that defendant No.3 was the owner or she has any alienable right in the property in dispute. They have failed to connect the same that it is the property of defendant No.3. The defendants have illegally raised the construction over the disputed portion, without any legal right. Not only that, the decision of the trial court was upheld by the Ist appellate Court. Thus, the Courts below have rightly negatived the claim of the defendants and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs in this respect. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendants did not point out any material, much less cogent, to show as to how and in what manner, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below are illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant connection. 14. Meaning thereby, 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 concurrent findings of fact that Sahib Ditta Mal purchased the suit property, vide sale certificate (Ex.P3) from the Rehabilitation Department. He sold the same, including the disputed portion, described in the site plan (Ex.P1) to the original plaintiff, by way of sale deed (Ex.P2). The defendants have failed to prove in this regard. 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 appellants, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this behalf. 15. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the findings of the Courts below in this respect. Regular Second Appeal No.1497 of 2005 -5- All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on their behalf, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 16. In this manner, 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. 17. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellants. 18. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 11.8.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No