RSA No.3116 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No.3116 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 15, 2011 Apinder Singh and another .....Appellant v. Joginder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.K.Chawla, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.14404-C of 2011 Requests for placing on record the Court fee. The same is taken on record. Application stands disposed of accordingly subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.3116 of 2011 The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 19.5.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-defendant no.1 against judgment and decree dated 13.9.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Faridkot, vide which suit filed by respondent no.1- plaintiff for possession of the portion of the house in dispute was decreed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, it is a dispute between mother and son. RSA No.3116 of 2011(O&M) -2- Appellant is son of respondent no.1-plaintiff-mother. It is unfortunate that mother has to file a suit to seek possession of a portion of the house against her own son. Present appellant has himself admitted that in earlier suit, his mother -Joginder Kaur was held to be owner of the suit property by the Court of District Judge, Faridkot, vide judgment dated 2.5.2002, Ex.P2. It is also stated that he is not ready to vacate the house nor he is ready to give any money to his mother for use and occupation of the house. He is admitted that the property shown as yellow in the site plan is being used by his mother and remaining portion is being used by him. Hence, respondent- plaintiff has been able to prove that she is owner of the property in dispute by virtue of judgment Ex.P2. Present appellant is in possession of the portion of a said house without any right. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned 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. 15.12.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge