JUDGMENT Mr. Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.: - The plaintiff instituted a suit against the defendants claiming the relief of permanent injunction as regards interference in her peaceful possession over House No.5639, Phase III, Modern Residential Complex (hereinafter to be referred as ‘suit property’). Relief of mandatory injunction was also sought for directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property that had been unlawfully and unauthorizedly taken over during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiff is the widow of Major Satinderjit Singh Brar who was the owner of the suit property and had expired on 10.8.1997. Defendants No.1 and 2 are the daughter and son-inlaw respectively of the plaintiff. Plaintiff pleaded that she along with her husband had been residing in the suit property as the absolute owner in possession thereof. It was pleaded that a telephone connection, gas connection and electricity bills were also pertaining to the suit property and the same were issued in the name of late Major Brar. Plaintiff pleaded that her husband expired at his ancestral home in Muktsar and when she was away for performing his last rites and rituals, she had been threatened by the defendants to give up the suit property to them failing which she would be forcibly dispossessed. Further more, the defendants were stated to have unauthorizedly occupied the built up portion of the entire first floor as also the second floor of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. 2. The suit was contested by the defendants wherein a stand was taken that defendant No.1 had, in fact, applied for allotment of suit property to the Chandigarh Housing Board through her father, namely, Major Brar as he was eligible for allotment under the quota reserved for ex-servicemen. At the time of possession of the suit property, the same was in a partial state of construction. Defendant No.1 stated that upon attaining possession of the suit property from the Chandigarh Housing Board, the same had been handed over to her and she was given the charge of completing the construction of the suit property as also of furnishing the same. Defendant No.1 further stated that she was the sole nominee of her father in the records of the Chandigarh Housing Board insofar as the suit property was concerned. Defendants stated that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit property. Defendant No.1 further stated that she was the sole nominee of her father in the records of the Chandigarh Housing Board insofar as the suit property was concerned. Defendants stated that the plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit property. Rather, the ration card, voter card and other relevant documents demonstrated that the plaintiff was a permanent resident of Muktsar. Defendants further stated that the instant suit had been filed to take illegal possession of the suit property and in fact, she had entered into possession of such property only on 5.11.1997 with the help of police assistance by mis-leading and mis-construing the facts as regards the passing of the status quo order by the Court. 3. Upon the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck by the parties: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Relief. 4. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 1.11.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and issued directions to restore the possession of the defendants in terms of vacating such portion which was under her possession as obtained by her on 5.11.1997. Liberty, however, was granted to the plaintiff to seek possession of the suit property in due process of law in terms of availing the appropriate remedy available to her. A civil appeal preferred by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 25.4.2011. Resultantly, the plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal before this Court. 5. I have heard Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Courts below have recorded findings which are perverse and there has been mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence as regards recording of a finding that the appellant had failed to prove her possession over the suit property prior to 5.11.1997. Deepak Sibal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the Courts below have recorded findings which are perverse and there has been mis-reading and mis-appreciation of evidence as regards recording of a finding that the appellant had failed to prove her possession over the suit property prior to 5.11.1997. Learned counsel would further vehemently argue that upon the death of her husband, the appellant had become the owner of the suit property and no directions could have been issued by the Courts below to restore the possession of a portion of such suit property to the defendants. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below in denying to the appellant the relief of injunction was based on sound reasoning and upon due appreciation of evidence. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by respective counsel and have also perused the case file as also records of the Courts below which had been requisitioned. 9. The suit was filed by the present appellant seeking the relief of permanent injunction simpliciter. As it was her case that the defendant had come into occupation of the suit property unauthorizedly and forcibly during the pendency of the suit, accordingly, the scope of the suit was enlarged to claim the relief of mandatory injunction also. The issue regarding ownership of the suit property was not the subject matter of adjudication. To succeed for the grant of permanent injunction as regards the suit property, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-appellant to prove her possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit i.e. on 16.9.1997. 10. It is upon due appreciation of evidence adduced on record that a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the plaintiff had failed to prove her possession over the suit property at the time of her having instituted a suit. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the evidence that has been led in this regard. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the evidence that has been led in this regard. Even though in the pleadings, the plaintiff had taken a stand that she had been residing in the suit property along with her husband late Major Brar but no specific date had been furnished with regard to her having entered into possession of the suit property. PW1 to PW4 i.e. the witnesses of the plaintiff testified that the plaintiff had been residing in the suit property since December 1995. On the other hand, Exhibit D2 is the complaint made by the plaintiff to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 3.11.1997 in which she herself mentioned that she had been living in the suit property along with her husband since December, 1994. The letter of possession as regards the suit property as issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board stood proved and admitted on record as Exhibit DW12/5. A copy of letter of allotment was Exhibit DW12/2. In terms of the documents mentioned hereinabove, the possession of the suit property had been delivered to late Major Brar on 25.8.1995. This, in itself, would show that the stand of the plaintiff as regards her having been residing in the suit property and being in possession thereof since December 1994 was totally false. That apart, the plaintiff in her own testimony categorically stated that the suit property was fully furnished with all electrical appliances in the nature of ceiling fans, air-conditioner, heat blowers etc. However, Ashok Kumar, Lower Division Clerk from the Office of SDO Electricity Operation, DW7 as also Rameshwar Dass, Lower Division Clerk, PW9 upon being examined, stated that the electricity connection pertaining to the suit property was released on 30.11.1995 in pursuance to application made on 13.9.1995. As per record of the Electricity Department, it was testified that the electricity meter reflected a reading of mere 18 units for the period 5.12.1995 to 5.9.1997. This, in itself, would falsify the stand of the plaintiff that she had been residing in the suit property and was in possession thereof since the year 1994. 11. The Courts below have further recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff came into possession over a portion of the suit property only on 5.11.1997. This, in itself, would falsify the stand of the plaintiff that she had been residing in the suit property and was in possession thereof since the year 1994. 11. The Courts below have further recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff came into possession over a portion of the suit property only on 5.11.1997. Exhibits D1 and D2 are the complaints that the plaintiff filed to the police regarding the defendants having entered into forceful and illegal possession of the suit property. In such complaints, the plaintiff made a specific mention about a Local Commissioner having been appointed by the Court who had, in turn, given a finding regarding the possession and on the basis thereof, the Courts had granted an interim direction regarding the maintenance of status quo in respect of the possession of the suit property. On the basis of such averments made in Exhibits D1 and D2, the police had acted and brought the plaintiff into possession of a portion of the suit property on the ground floor. A perusal of the complete Court record would reveal that the plaintiff had made false averments in the complaints inasmuch as no Local Commissioner had ever been appointed by the Court and as such, there was no question of any report having been filed by the Local Commissioner with regard to her possession over the suit property. 12. On the other hand, the admitted position of fact is that at the time of possession of the suit property having been delivered by the Chandigarh Housing Board to the allottee i.e. Major Brar, the construction on the first floor was incomplete. The fact of a joint account between defendant No.1 and her father Major Brar was also admitted. It was further admitted that defendant No.1 got the first floor of the suit property completed in terms of construction as also furnished the same. The account entries as regards expenditure incurred by defendant No.1 on the construction was proved on record as Exhibit DW12/26. The Courts below have held defendant No.1 to be having control over the suit property even during the life time of the husband of the plaintiff, and it was defendant No.1 who had constructed the first floor and, admittedly, as per records of the Chandigarh Housing Board, defendant No.1 was the sole nominee as regards the suit property of which the allottee undoubtedly was her father. It has also been duly proved on record that defendant No.1 was having the keys of the suit property in her possession and she also proved on record the electricity bills, Exhibit DW12/28 and Exhibit DW12/29 to demonstrate that the defendants had been paying the electricity bills of the suit property. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to show any misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence adduced on record as regards the concurrent finding regarding the plaintiff having failed to prove her possession over the suit property prior to 5.11.1997. It also stands duly established on record that the plaintiff had entered into possession over a part of the suit property only on 5.11.1997 and that also on the basis of false assertions having been made to the police authorities regarding a Local Commissioner’s report on the basis of which a status quo order regarding possession having been granted by the Court. I find no perversity in the said findings recorded by the Courts below. 14. A plaintiff approaching the Court for the grant of an equitable and discretionary relief of injunction has to come with clean hands. The conduct of such plaintiff would be of paramount relevance. Not only was the conduct of the plaintiff dishonest in terms of having filed complaints in the shape of Exhibits D1 and D2 to falsely assert the fact of appointment of a Local Commissioner and the report having been submitted as regards her possession over the suit property, but the Courts below have taken note of the fact that the plaintiff had resorted to adopting contradictory and shifting stands as per her convenience. A few instances in this regard may be noticed. As per the pleadings in the plaint, the plaintiff had asserted that she was away to Muktsar to perform the last rites and rituals of her husband in August 1997. On the other hand, in her testimony she deposed on oath that she had, in fact, gone to Muktsar to attend to certain pending litigation. The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box had stated in her crossexamination that the relations between her husband and her sons were excellent and most cordial. On the other hand, in her testimony she deposed on oath that she had, in fact, gone to Muktsar to attend to certain pending litigation. The plaintiff while appearing in the witness box had stated in her crossexamination that the relations between her husband and her sons were excellent and most cordial. On the other hand, document Exhibit DA would clearly reveal that the sons of the plaintiff had filed a suit against their father i.e. late Major Brar stating that he was a person of unsound mind and even was unfit to act as the Karta of the joint family. Still further, notice was taken of an affidavit dated 7.10.1991, Exhibit D12/27, wherein the plaintiff had herself stated as regards moving of an application to the police authorities, as regards she apprehending a danger to her life from her husband and seeking protection. Upon being confronted with such affidavit, plaintiff took a stand that such application had been moved under the threat and pressure of her sons. Accordingly, I find that the Courts below have rightfully non-suited the plaintiff-appellant keeping her conduct as also an attempt on her part to mis-lead the Court as regards her assertion of having been in possession of the suit property since the year 1994. 15. I also do not find any infirmity in the directions issued by the Courts below as regards restoration of the possession of a portion of the suit property in favour of the defendants. The conduct of the present appellant with respect to having dispossessed the defendants from the suit property under the garb of a status quo order and seeking police help by stating wrong facts cannot go un-noticed. A status quo order as regards possession of the suit property had been passed by the trial Court on 16.9.1997. However, in the complaint, Exhibit D1, the plaintiff while referring to such status quo order also mentioned regarding a non-existent report of the Local Commissioner so as to mis-lead the police authorities as regards a finding having been returned in her favour in respect of the possession of the suit property was concerned. Clearly, the plaintiff had entered into possession of a portion of the suit property in a clandestine and contemptuous manner, for the first time on 5.11.1997. Clearly, the plaintiff had entered into possession of a portion of the suit property in a clandestine and contemptuous manner, for the first time on 5.11.1997. In such peculiar facts and events, the Courts have rightfully acted in directing the restoration of possession in such portion of the suit property in favour of the defendants. 16. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the present appellant has rightfully been denied the discretionary and equitable relief of injunction pertaining to a suit property over which she had miserably failed to prove her possession as on date of the filing of the suit. The finding of fact recorded by the Courts below as regards the appellant being not in possession of the suit property is based on due appreciation of evidence and would be binding on this Court while exercising jurisdiction in second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 17. I find that the present second appeal must fail as it does not raise any question of law, much less a substantial question of law. 18. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. Appeal dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------