Baljit Singh vs Dial Kaur

L.N. Mittal, J.—Defendant Baljit Singh having failed in both the courts below is in second appeal.

Respondent-Plaintiff Dial Kaur filed suit against Defendant-Appellant for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering in peaceful possession of the Plaintiff over the suit land measuring 10 biswas comprising of khasra No. 1842 and from dispossessing her therefrom, alleging that Plaintiff is owner in possession of suit land having purchased it from her husband Pal Singh, whereas Defendant has no right, title or interest therein.

Defendant, on the other hand, pleaded that he purchased 10 biswas land of khasra No. 1843 from Plaintiffs father-in-law Hazara Singh and also purchased 15 biswas land of khasra No. 1843 from Plaintiffs husband Pal Singh and Defendant is owner in possession of said 25 biswas land, in which he has constructed his house. Plaint allegations were broadly controverted. Various other pleas were also raised.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 16.07.2010, decreed the Plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the Defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011. Feeling aggrieved, Defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the case file.

Plaintiff, by leading cogent documentary evidence, has proved that she is owner in possession of the suit land. In this regard, she has produced copies of jamabandis and khasra girdawaris and also sale deed and mutation depicting that Plaintiff purchased the suit land and is owner in possession thereof. Moreover, Defendant-Appellant himself does not claim any right, title or interest in suit land measuring 10 biswas of khasra No. 1842 claimed by the Plaintiff. Claim of the Defendant-Appellant is regarding 25 biswas land of khasra No. 1843. However, the Plaintiff has not claimed any right, title or interest in the said land. Plaintiffs suit has, therefore, been rightly decreed by the courts below.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Plaintiff-Respondent is claiming that part of the Defendant''s house exist in khasra No. 1842. The contention is completely beyond pleadings and evidence. Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant has pleaded any such fact in the pleadings nor there is any material on record in respect thereof. The contention is completely hypothetical and based on conjectures.

For the reasons aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the instant second appeal. Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below that Plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land does not suffer from any infirmity, much less illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. The said finding is fully justified by the evidence on record. Plaintiffs evidence regarding her ownership and possession over the suit land stands completely unrebutted and even Defendant-Appellant does not claim any right, title or interest in the suit land. Consequently, aforesaid finding recorded by the courts below does not call for interference in second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.