IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2680 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: September 13, 2011. Dharampal and others. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Ramotar and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Narnaul dismissing appeal filed by the present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and decree dated 19.12.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul vide which suit filed by respondents-plaintiffs was partly decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. RSA No.2680 of 2011 Briefly stated, respondents-plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that plaintiffs alongwith proforma defendants are owners in possession of the land in dispute with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining appellants-defendants from alienating the land in dispute. Suit was contested by present appellants-defendants denying the claim of respondents-plaintiffs. Learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of respondents-plaintiffs while holding that they are in possession of the land in dispute and that revenue entries showing contrary are liable to be corrected and present appellants- defendants were restrained from interfering in their possessory rights over the land in dispute. However, suit for declaration of ownership as well as injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the ownership rights was dismissed. Appeal field against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned first appellate Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants- defendants that when respondents-plaintiffs were not found to be owners of the land in dispute, their suit for declaration to the effect that respondents- plaintiffs are in possession cannot succeed. However, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants-defendants. Admittedly, earlier a suit was filed by present appellants-defendants against respondents-plaintiffs regarding this land for permanent injunction and in the said suit respondents-plaintiffs were held to be in cultivating possession of the property in dispute. Appellants- defendants failed to prove their possession. Hence, it has been rightly held by learned courts below that respondents-plaintiffs are having right to protect their possession. 2 RSA No.2680 of 2011 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 both 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 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 13, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3