IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 4850 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 4, 2011. Amar Singh and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Kaushalya Devi and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 10.05.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 23.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Anandpur Sahib vide which suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. RSA No.4850 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit for possession of the property in dispute forming part of Khasra no.12, Khewat no.82, Khatoni no.140 on the plea that the same was purchased by him from previous owner –Ishar Singh and that suit for specific performance against Sher Singh was decreed in his favour and that respondents-defendants are in illegal possession of the same. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants denied ownership of the appellants-plaintiffs over the property in dispute rather plea has been taken that defendants have been continuing in possession of the same and that even in earlier litigation possession of respondent-defendant was established. Specific plea has been taken that earlier the land in dispute was owned and possessed by Smt. Durgi, who was maternal grandmother of defendant with whom defendant was living since his childhood. On appreciation of evidence adduced by both the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal filed by them against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ropar. It has been vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs that the property in dispute forms part of the property which was purchased by them from previous owner –Ishar Singh regarding 2 RSA No.4850 of 2010 which earlier suit was filed by present appellants-plaintiffs, which was decreed in their favour and pursuance to said judgment and decree, sale deed was also executed in their favour. Hence, it is contended that respondent- defendant is having no right to remain in possession of the same. However, it has been observed by both the courts below that earlier suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed regarding plot as shown by letters ABCDF in the site plan, Ex.P3 filed in that suit and that no Khasra number has been mentioned either in the plaint or in the evidence, whereas the present suit has been filed by the present appellants regarding the property measuring 4-1/2 Marlas out of the land bearing Khasra no.12(2-11) on which house has been constructed on the plea that the same is part of Khasra no.12. The dimensions of the property as mentioned in the earlier suit, on which the rights are being claimed by the appellants-plaintiffs do not tally with the property in dispute in the present suit. Hence, the appellants-plaintiffs failed to prove his ownership over the property in dispute. On the other hand, possession of respondent-defendant over the property in dispute has been duly proved in the earlier litigation between the parties. A suit for a decree of declaration was filed by respondent-defendant that he is owner in possession of the property in dispute and the same was decreed against present appellants-plaintiffs. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the appellate Court. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned courts below in passing the impugned 3 RSA No.4850 of 2010 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 mis-appreciation 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 ) November 4, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4