RSA No. 3023 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3023 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Mange Ram son of Sunder Lal, resident of village Janti Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat, at present resident of village Badli, Delhi State. ... Appellant Versus 1. Shayam Singh; 2. Subhash; 3. Rajesh; 4. Ashok Kumar; all s/o Ram Kishan son of Sunder Lal, r/o village Janti Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonepat. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 12.08.2008, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, and the judgement and decree dated 27.01.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide which, it RSA No. 3023 of 2009 2 dismissed the appeal. 2. The plaintiffs/respondents, claimed themselves to be the owners, in possession of the disputed house, as fully described in para No. 1 of the plaint, and shown, in the site plan. It was stated that the grand-father of the plaintiffs namely Sunder Lal, was also the owner of 1 bigha of land, comprising khasra No. 27/31/3, situated within the revenue estate of village Badli (Delhi). He had constructed a pucca house thereon. There was litigation between Gram Sabha, Badli and Sunder Lal, in respect of the said property. Case No. 36/66, in respect of that property, was decided, against the Gram Sabha. The plaintiffs, filed a civil suit, against the daughters of Sunder Lal, in respect of the disputed house, and the decree dated 19.03.97, was passed, in their favour, according to which, they became the owners of 3/ 4 share of the same. It was further stated that an oral family settlement took place, between the plaintiffs and the defendant, on 12.03.02, in respect of the disputed house, as well as the house situated at Badli. According to that oral settlement, the disputed house, fell exclusively to the share of the plaintiffs, whereas, the house at village Badli, fell to the exclusive share of the defendant. It was further stated that since then the parties have been in exclusive possession of the houses, which fell to their share, and they have been living in the same. It was further stated that the defendant, at the instigation of the proprietors of the village, was bent upon to alienate the disputed house illegally. The defendant, was many a time, asked not to do so, but to no avail. On his final refusal, to desist from his nefarious designs, left with no other alternative, a suit RSA No. 3023 of 2009 3 for permanent injunction, was filed. 3. The defendant/appellant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had no locus-standi and cause of action, to file the suit. It was further pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. It was admitted that the plaintiffs are the sons of Ram Kishan son of Sunder Lal. It was also admitted that Sunder Lal, had constructed a pucca house, owned by him, at village Badli, and he had won the litigation, in respect of the said property from Gram Sabha, Badli. It was stated that the decree dated 19.03.97, was illegal and was not binding, against the rights of the defendant, who is the owner to the extent of 1/ 2 share, in the disputed property. The factum of family settlement, on 12.03.02, was completely denied. It was further stated that the defendant, was in exclusive possession of the house, at Badli (Delhi-State), and was also the owner in possession to the extent of 1 /2 share of the disputed house. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land and entitled to the relief of injunction, as claimed against the defendant? OPP (ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD (iii) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of RSA No. 3023 of 2009 4 action to file the present suit? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sonepat, vide judgement and decree dated 27.01.2009. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are RSA No. 3023 of 2009 5 grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Admittedly, Sunder Lal, was the owner of the house, in dispute. It is also evident from para 10 of the judgement of the first Appellate Court, that land comprising rectangle No. 27, killa No. 31/3 (8-18) at Badli was banjar kadim and the Gram Sabha, was recorded as owner thereof. Gram Sabha, Badli, through Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, filed a suit, against Sunder Lal, under Section 86-A of the Delhi Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1965, in respect of 1 bigha of land, comprising khasra No. 27/31/3. It was held therein that Sunder Lal, was in possession of the said plot, prior to the commencement of the Delhi Land Reforms (Amendment) Act. Accordingly, the Gram Panchayat, failed to prove the ownership of the said land. Ultimately, Sunder Lal, was declared to be the owner thereof. Admittedly, a house, was constructed over the said property by Sunder Lal. The defendant, claimed that he was in possession, as also the owner thereof. The Courts below, on the basis of the evidence of Shyam Singh, PW1, Ram Dhari, PW2, Phool Kumari, PW3, Parmeshwari Devi, PW5, and Smt. Kishani, PW6, came to the conclusion, that an oral family settlement took place, between the parties, in March, 2002, according to which, the disputed house fell to the share of the plaintiffs, and the house, at Badli, which had been constructed by Sunder Lal, fell to the share of RSA No. 3023 of 2009 6 the defendant. The stand taken up by the defendant, to the effect, that he was the owner in possession of the house, at Badli (Delhi), though the same was constructed by Sunder Lal, also lent support to the version of the plaintiffs, that an oral family settlement took place, as a result whereof, the house, at Badli, fell to the share of the defendant, and the disputed house fell to the share of the plaintiffs. The Courts below, were also right, in coming to the conclusion that, thus, the plaintiffs became the owners in possession of the house, in dispute, on the basis of the aforesaid family settlement. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. The judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, are liable to be upheld. 10. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. 18.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE