C.M.No.7525-C of 2011 in RSA No.2769 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.7525-C of 2011 in RSA No.2769 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 7, 2011 Tasvir and others .....Appellants v. Ramesh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.K.S.Malik-I, Advocate for the appellants. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.7525-C of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.2769 of 2011(O&M) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 16.3.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, vide which appeal filed by present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 1.2.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through carefully both the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below. Appellants-plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction which was dismissed by learned trial Court. Appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. C.M.No.7525-C of 2011 in RSA No.2769 of 2011(O&M) -2- Appellants are claiming right over the plot in dispute on the basis of alleged exchange. However, both the Courts below have gone into this factual position and came to the conclusion that appellants-plaintiffs failed to show that the plot in dispute was received by him in exchange. Even the boundary of the plot in dispute do not tally with the plot which was allegedly taken in exchange. Appellants-plaintiffs have failed to show to this Court any document which shows that the plot in dispute is the same which was exchanged with Baldeva. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- plaintiffs that Courts below have not taken into consideration the site plan filed by them. However, plea is without any merit as the same was duly discussed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, i.e., learned first appellate Court, who came to the conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to prove that the plot in dispute is the same which was allegedly taken by him in exchange from one Baldeva. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by the 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 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. 7.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge C.M.No.7525-C of 2011 in RSA No.2769 of 2011(O&M) -3-