IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA 841 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.5.2008 Surat Singh …Appellant Versus Sant Ram …Respondent Present: Mr HS Dhandi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr Amandeep Agnihotri, Advocate for the caveator/respondent. S.S. SARON, J (oral). This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal of the defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 21.3.2006 passed by the trial Court has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff or otherwise forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff by closing the door (D1) and the down water pipe (Parnala) (P1) of the courtyard in the house of the plaintiff shown by letters – ABCD in the site plan. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the site was a part and parcel of his house and was its courtyard. The defendant submitted that in fact the suit land was owned and possessed by him and that the plaintiff had no concern with it. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence and material on record have concurrently held that the plaintiff-respondent was in possession of the plot 1 RSA 841 of 2008 in dispute and, therefore, entitled to injunction. The conclusions that have been reached at are findings of facts. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed strong reliance on the writing recorded by the Gram Panchayat on 2.9.1987 (Ex D2) in which the Gram Panchayat had stated that Surat Singh – defendant-appellant was in possession of the said site since the year 1960. Learned Lower Appellate Court observed that the said resolution shows that there was over-writing over the month and the year. Moreover, the said writing of the Panchayat has no value as the Panchayat had also given a writing Ex PX to the plaintiff-respondent signed by various members including Nambardar, Sarpanch, Panches and Chowkidar, etc. The writing Ex PX was to the effect that the plaintiff was in possession of the said site and he was owner thereof. A local commissioner was also appointed by the trial Court who submitted his report Ex D8. Site plan Ex D7 was also prepared by the local Commissioner. Reliance was placed on the site plan and the report of the local commissioner and it was observed that the site in dispute adjoins the room and the courtyard of the plaintiff-respondent where he had stored Chaff and there were heaps of manure at several places. Besides, there was a wide opening from the site of the plaintiff towards the dispute site – ABCD. It was also observed that the house of the defendant was not nearby. On the basis of evidence and material on record, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. In the circumstances, there is no question of law involved in this appeal. The appellant in terms of Section 100(3) CPC has formulated questions of law in para 10 of his memo of appeal. The questions of law are to the effect - Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on misreading of evidence? This, in my view, is more in the nature of grounds of appeal for assailing the judgment rather than a question of law. 2 RSA 841 of 2008 The second question as formulated is – Whether the findings of the Courts below to the effect that house of the plaintiff adjoining to the site in dispute so he is in possession, are without any basis ? This is also a question which is an issue between the parties and not a question of law. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 28.5.2008. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 3