Regular Second Appeal No.4824 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 11 , 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.4824 of 2010 (O & M ) Har Bhagwan ….Appellant Versus Hans Raj ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.14381-C of 2010. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 23 days in refilling the appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No.4824 of 2010 (O & M ) Plaintiff Har Bhagwan is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby Regular Second Appeal No.4824 of 2010 (O & M ) his suit for permanent injunction in respect of the house in dispute has been dismissed. I have heard Mr.Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate, appearing for the appellant and have gone through the impugned judgments. Plaintiff-appellant Har Bhagwan and defendant-respondent Hans Raj are real brothers. The house in dispute was purchased in the year 1974. Smt. Jindi Bai wife of Dewa Ram, mother of the plaintiff and defendant, was having seven sons and two daughters. During the life time of Smt.Jindi Bai and Dewa Ram, their sons namely Tulsi Dass, Har Bhagwan (plaintiff) and Hans Raj (defendant) remained joint with them and as per Will of Dewa Ram all his properties were inherited by his sons, namely, Tulsi Dass, Har Bhagwan and Hans Raj. By way of written compromise dated 11.7.1990, Tulsi Dass, Har Bhagwan and Hans Raj had partitioned their joint properties and in terms of the said compromise suit property had fallen to the share of the defendant and since then he is in possession of the said property as owner. Thus, the only question involved in this Regular Second Appeal is - whether a written compromise dated 11.7.1990 whereby the parties inter se had partitioned the properties devolved upon them had been effected between them or not. Plaintiff-appellant Har Bhagwan while deposing in Court as P.W.1, in his cross-examination, admitted that he along with his brothers Tulsi Dass and Hans Raj (defendant) and parents used to live together. He further admitted that he had never deposited the house tax in respect of the suit property and, in fact, Hans Raj (defendant) used to deposit the same. He further admitted that electricity meter was installed in the suit property and payment of electricity bills used to be made by Hans Raj. He further admitted that Hans Raj defendant Regular Second Appeal No.4824 of 2010 (O & M ) was in occupation of the suit property. However, Har Bhagwan (P.W.1) denied the suggestion that in terms of compromise dated 11.7.1990, suit property had fallen to the share of the defendant. On the other hand, Hans Raj (defendant) while appearing as D.W.1 denied the suggestion that suit property was never partitioned amongst brothers in terms of agreement dated 11.7.1990. The statement of Hans Raj (D.W.1) gets corroboration from the statement Tulsi Dass (D.W.2), who is none else than the real brother of the plaintiff and the defendant. Wazir Chand (D.W.3), Clerk in the Municipal Committee, Gohana, who had deposed from the summoned record, stated that in terms of the house tax assessment register for the year 1992-93, the suit property was entered in the name of Hans Raj. In fact, previously plaintiff Har Bhagwan had instituted a civil suit bearing No.169 of 1992 against defendant Hans Raj and another seeking declaration to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 18.10.1991 passed in Civil Suit No.368 was illegal. During the pendency of civil suit No.169 of 1992, statement of Rajinder Lal, Deed Writer (Ex.D.10) had been recorded wherein he had categorically stated that compromise in question was scribed by him on the instructions of the parties and after knowing and understanding contents thereof, the partied had put their signatures on the said compromise. The said compromise was entered in his register at serial No.650. In the said civil suit, plaintiff Har Bhagwan had also examined Ram Dayal as P.W.2 who had also stated that Har Bhagwan and Hans Raj had entered into compromise in respect of shops and houses in the year 1990 and the said compromise had been reduced into writing. Still further, in civil suit No.169 of 1992, plaintiff Har Bhagwan had appeared as P.W.1 and his that statement is Exhibit D.11 on record. The statement of the plaintiff (Exhibit D.11) reveals Regular Second Appeal No.4824 of 2010 (O & M ) in clear terms that he (plaintiff Har Bhagwan) had specifically stated about arrival of compromise amongst brothers. Both the Courts below have returned a concurrent finding about the execution of agreement between the parties inter se. Under the circumstances, no interference is called for in the firm of findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, also could not persuade me, by referring to any case law or by pointing out any material on record to show that the findings recorded by the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, to take a different view than the one taken by the Courts below. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed Dated: February 11, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE