Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1266 (PNJ)

Jai Chand v. Sadhu Ram

2002-11-20

VINEY MITTAL

body2002
JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - The defendants having remained unsuccessful concurrently in the two courts below, have approached this Court through the present Regular Second Appeal. The judgments and decree dated November 20, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri and dated October 15, 1992 passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Jagadhri have assailed in the present appeal. 2. Facts. The plaintiff Sadhu Ram claimed himself to be owner in possession of the tubewell in dispute situated in land comprised in Khasra No. 40//24/2/2 bearing electric power connection No. C3-438. He filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in his exclusive use and possession of the tubewell in dispute. The tubewell in dispute was previously owned and possessed by Ram Chander son of Inder and Budh Ram father of Babu Ram and Sadhu Ram. Subsequently, the said tubewell came in the ownership and possession of Ram Chander. Sadhu Ram entered into an exchange with regard to the tubewell and thereafter the tubewell alongwith land came to be vested in Sadhu Ram. The plaintiff claims that he has been owner in possession of the suit land thereafter. Apprehending interference by the defendants, he filed the present suit. 3. The suit has been contested by the defendants. In the written statement filed by them, they claimed that tubewell in question was installed by Babu Ram after taking a loan from the Bank. The factum that Ram Chander owned the tubewell in question was denied. A plea has further been raised that plaintiff Sadhu Ram got connection transferred in his name by forging the signatures of Babu Ram and the matter was stated to be pending with the police. 4. The learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was found that tubewell in question alongwith land was found existing in Khasra No. 40//24/2/2 and therefore, since the said land belongs to the plaintiff Sadhu Ram, therefore, tubewell in question was also owned by him. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The defendant felt aggrieved, and filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding recorded by the Court below. 5. Now thee defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the Courts below. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The defendant felt aggrieved, and filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge, Jagadhri dismissed the appeal and upheld the finding recorded by the Court below. 5. Now thee defendants have filed the present Regular Second Appeal challenging the aforesaid judgments and decree of the Courts below. 6. I have heard Sh. Anil Khetarpal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sh. S.K. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 7. Sh. Anil Khetarpal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below were contrary to the record, inasmuch as, it was not proved that tubewell in question was owned by Ram Chander at the time the alleged exchange took place with Sadhu Ram plaintiff and therefore it cannot be taken that any valid exchange had taken place between Ram Chander and Sadhu Ram with regard to the tubewell, in question. It was further submitted by Sh. Khetarpal that tubewell in question was proved to be installed by Budh Ram by obtaining a loan from the bank. 8. On the other hand Sh. S.K. Goel, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that findings recorded by the learned Courts below were based on the evidence led by the parties and in a second appeal, the appellants could not claim re-appraisal of the evidence. Sh. Goel has further pointed out that it was clearly proved on the record that Ram Chander was original owner of the tubewell and the land and the same was got exchanged by Ram Chander with the land owned by Sadhu Ram. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that the pleas by Sh. Khetarpal lie in realm of reappraisal of evidence. Firm findings of fact have been recorded by the learned Courts below. No infirmity has been pointed out by Sh. Khetarpal in the aforesaid findings. Entertaining the plea raised by the appellants would actually amount to re- appraisal of evidence, which is not open to this Court in the present Regular Second Appeal. No question of law has been raised. I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.