Mukhtiar Kaur vs Jangir Singh

L.N. Mittal, J.—By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e. RSA No. 1136 of 2010 titled as Mukhtiar Kaur v. Jangir Singh and RSA No. 2088 of 2010 titled as Mukhtiar Kaur and Ors. v. Jangir Singh and Ors.

These appeals have arisen out of two suits i.e. civil Suit No. 471 of 2001 (RT 132-1/14.01.2008) instituted by Appellant Mukhtiar Kaur against Jangir Singh Respondent and civil Suit No. 476 of 2001 (RT 132-1/14.01.2008) instituted by Jangir Singh and his two sons and one Balwinder Singh against Mukhtiar Kaur and her husband Surinder Singh and one Jeet Singh. Both the suits were disposed of by common judgment and decrees dated 07.02.2008 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot. First appeals preferred by Mukhtiar Kaur in her suit and by Mukhtiar Kaur and her husband in the other suit have been dismissed by learned District Judge, Faridkot vide common judgment and decrees dated 17.08.2009. Feeling aggrieved, Mukhtiar Kaur has filed RSA No. 1136 of 2010 arising out of her own suit and Mukhtiar Kaur and her husband have filed RSA No. 2088 of 2010 arising out of the other suit, which had been instituted by Jangir Singh etc.

The dispute relates to a site which is claimed by the Appellant to be part of her house/plot but the other side claims it to be part of the street. Learned trial court dismissed the suit filed by Mukhtiar Kaur and decreed the suit filed by Jangir Singh etc. holding the disputed site to be part of street.

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

Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that the disputed site is not proved to be part of street and there is only self-serving oral statement of Jangir Singh to substantiate the said claim of Jangir Singh etc., which is not sufficient to establish this fact. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of The Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana Vs. Oswal Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., .

I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but find no merit in it. Plaintiff purchased house lying on one side of the disputed site by one sale deed and purchased plot lying on other side of the disputed site through another registered sale deed. Boundaries of the properties purchased by the Appellant herself through the aforesaid sale deeds depict that the disputed site is street. Consequently, the Appellant cannot contend that the disputed site is not street or that it is part of her property. The Appellant did not purchase this property through the aforesaid sale deeds on the basis of which her entire claim is founded. On the contrary, these documents of the Appellant Mukhtiar Kaur herself manifestly depict that the disputed site is part of street.

Faced with the aforesaid situation, counsel for the Appellant contended that the said disputed site was meant for use of the Plaintiff only. The contention is untenable. The disputed site has been described as street in Plaintiff''s own sale deeds and there is not even a remote hint or indication in the sale deeds of the Appellant Mukhtiar Kaur that the disputed site was meant to be used as street by the Appellant only.

Concurrent finding recorded by the courts below against the Appellants is based on proper appreciation of the evidence. Appellant Mukhtiar Kaur cannot claim the disputed site to be part of her property in view of her sale deeds and the same is proved to be street. Consequently, finding of the courts below to this effect does not warrant interference in second appeals because the said finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of the evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in these second appeals. Both the appeals are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed in limine.