1 RSA No. 1546 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ---- R.S.A. No. 1546 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.4.2009 Gurmit Kaur --- Appellant Versus Mishra Singh and another --- Respondents *** CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ---- PRESENT: Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for the appellant. ---- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is brother versus sister litigation. Mishra Singh, plaintiff- respondent No.1, is real brother of the appellant, Gurmit Kaur. He filed a suit for permanent injunction pleading, inter alia, that his father, Dalip Singh, was owner of land measuring 69 Kanals 18 Marlas situated at village Nathu Majra, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. After the death of Dalip Singh, the land came to be inherited by his widow, Harnam Kaur, Mishra Singh (son) i.e. the plaintiff and three daughters, namely, Charan Kaur, Piar Kaur and Gurmit Kaur. It was averred that the plaintiff was in exclusive possession of land measuring 17 Kanals 9 Marlas out of the total land mentioned above, even during the life time of his father, Dalip Singh. The plaintiff claimed that his mother, Harnam Kaur, had since died and her share in the land had also been inherited by him. The defendants had no concern whatsoever with the land 2 RSA No. 1546 of 2009 measuring 17 Kanals 9 Marlas but they had colluded with each other and were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. The plaintiff reflected a fact that the defendants were alleging that they had become owner of the land of the share of Charan Kaur daughter of Dalip Singh, i.e. the sister of the plaintiff himself, on the basis of a Will dated 22.7.1997. On the strength of these averments, the plaintiff prayed for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from illegally and forcibly dispossessing him from the land measuring 17 Kanals 9 Marlas referred to in the head note of the plaint. Defendant No.2 refrained from contesting the suit. Defendant No.1 stated in her written statement that the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of the suit land and she was in possession of her share therein. She pleaded a new fact on record that on 25.5.2000, a family settlement had taken place between the parties in the presence of the members of the village Panchayat whereby shares of the parties in the land were earmarked and even Khasra Numbers were also indicated in the settlement deed. Charan Kaur, who is sister of the plaintiff as well as of defendant No.1, executed a registered Will in favour of the defendants on 22.7.1997. It was pleaded that Charan Kaur had never executed any Will on 10.2.2002 in favour of Iqbal Singh son of the plaintiff, but in so far as the Will dated 22.7.1997 was concerned, the same had been held to be a genuine Will in the previous suit filed by the answering defendant and one Chamkaur Singh against the plaintiff and his son. It was, thus, stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. The trial court returned a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the land measuring 17 Kanals 9 Marlas, as alleged by him and he 3 RSA No. 1546 of 2009 had a reasonable apprehension of being dispossessed there from by or at the instance of the defendants. No defect was found with regard to maintainability of the suit. The suit was consequently decreed by judgment and decree dated 5.10.2007. The lower appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal carried by Gurmit Kaur, defendant No.1, by judgment and decree dated 4.3.2009. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record with his assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the findings recorded by the courts below are wrong and illegal and this Court should record an independent finding after re-appreciating the evidence. But this is not permissible in view of the impediment contained in the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, the findings recorded by the courts below are based on the oral as well as the documentary evidence and also on the sound reasoning. No illegality or perversity could be shown by the counsel in the said findings so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith in second appeal. No substantial question of law arises nor has any been pointed out by the counsel, for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) April 21, 2009 JUDGE *rkmalik*