IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2619 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 21, 2011. Gardawar Singh and another. ...... APPELLANT (s) Versus Jaswinder Kaur and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the appellants. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 01.12.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar dismissing appeal filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs against judgment and decree dated 09.12.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide which suit filed by appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed. RSA No.2619 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned judgments passed by learned courts below. Briefly stated, Swaran Kaur since deceased and represented by her LRs, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent- defendant from demolishing the house in dispute. Parties are related as mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. There was dispute between the parties. Respondent-defendant is widow as her husband has already expired. It has come on record as per report of Local Commission that the house in dispute is in dilapidated condition and the major portion of the house in dispute had already fallen down. Only the small portion of the same is in the possession of respondent-defendant. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the house in dispute was exclusively owned by husband of present appellant- plaintiff. On the other hand, plea was taken by respondent-defendant that there was other agricultural property as well and that family settlement had taken place and the house in dispute had come to the share of husband of respondent-defendant. The present suit has not been filed for declaration with consequential relief of injunction. Both the courts below after appreciation of evidence have come to the conclusion that respondent- defendant is in possession of small portion of the house in dispute and the major portion has already fallen down. 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 both the courts below is fully 2 RSA No.2619 of 2010 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. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 21, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 3