Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Kaur vs Harbans Singh And Anr on 19 December, 2014
R.S.A No. 6297 of 2014 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,
AT CHANDIGARH
-.-
R.S.A No. 6297 of 2014 (O&M)
Decided on : December 19, 2014
Gurcharan Kaur ... Appellant.
Versus
Harbans Singh & Anr. ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHAVIR S. CHAUHAN
Present : Mr. A.P. Kaushal, Advocate, with
Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mahavir S. Chauhan, J. (Oral)
Civil Suit No.528 RBT of 08.04.2011/12, brought by the appellant - Gurcharan Kaur, having been dismissed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib ('trial Court' - for short), vide judgment/decree dated 28.04.2014, she filed Civil Appeal No. 71 of 28.05.2014, which too has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, ('first appellate Court'- for short) vide judgment/decree dated 16.09.2014.
The plaintiff is in second appeal to challenge the findings so recorded by the courts below.
Case of the appellant is for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering in her peaceful possession over the suit property i.e., a "Bara". She claims that she has been using the said bara for TRIPTI SAINI 2015.01.07 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document R.S.A No. 6297 of 2014 (O&M) -2- various domestic purposes and has been in peaceful, actual and exclusive possession thereof. Prior to his death, her husband Karnail Singh was in possession of the said bara. Harbans Singh, the first defendant/respondent is real brother of Karnail Singh. Second respondent Hardeep Singh is son of the first respondent. House of the respondents adjoins appellant's house and they are using the site in front of their house as their courtyard (bara) up to the main passage. Taking the benefit of the fact that the appellant is a widow and has no son, the respondents are threatening to interfere in peaceful possession of appellant over the said bara. Suit was contested by the respondents and all the averments of the plaint were denied. It was asserted that the respondents were using the said bara. Issues were framed, evidence was led and the parties were heard by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was not able to prove her possession over the site in question and even the rough site plan (Exhibit P/1) placed on record was insufficient to prove her possession over that Bara.
Learned first appellate Court also affirmed the findings so recorded by the learned trial Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show anything contrary to the findings recorded by the courts below to the effect that the appellant has not been able to prove that the bara in question adjoins her house and that rough site plan, Exhibit P-1, depicts it properly. Further, it has been held by the courts below that the site plain, Exhibit D-1, TRIPTI SAINI 2015.01.07 13:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document R.S.A No. 6297 of 2014 (O&M) -3- has been proved on record by the respondents and according to this site plan the bara in question adjoins house of the respondents and by way of photographs Exhibits D-2 and D-3, case of the respondents is established to the aforesaid effect.
Further, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that the appeal involves any substantial question of law.
In view of the above, I regret my disinclination to entertain the regular second appeal.
The regular second appeal is dismissed accordingly.
[ Mahavir S. Chauhan ]
December 19, 2014 Judge
tripti
TRIPTI SAINI
2015.01.07 13:47
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document