High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Braham Prakash And Others vs Om Parkash And Others on 6 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Braham Prakash And Others vs Om Parkash And Others on 6 October, 2009
R.S.A.No.2281 of 2008                                        1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                               R.S.A.No.2281 of 2008

                               Date of Decision : 06.10.2009

Braham Prakash and others                          ...Appellants

                               Versus

Om Parkash and others                              ...Respondents

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: Mr. P.R.Yadav, Advocate,
         for the appellants.

          Mr. Rajesh Khandelwal, Advocate, for
          Mr. S.N.Yadav, Advocate,
          for respondents No.1, 2 and 4.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the

judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit for

possession by directing the defendants to remove the encroachment upon

the plot of the plaintiffs in khasra No.92, was decreed.

Both the Courts have considered the voluminous documentary

evidence led by the parties to return a finding that the defendants have

encroached upon the plot of the plaintiff. Such finding has been returned

after getting the plot demarcated in accordance with the instructions of

the Financial Commissioner.

On 15.10.2008, notice of motion was issued on the basis of the

statement of learned counsel for the appellants that they are in possession

of 3 Marlas of land for about 25 years and they are ready and willing to

pay the price of 3 Marlas of land, which has been found to be in their
R.S.A.No.2281 of 2008 2

unauthorized possession.

However, the parties could not arrive at a settlement in respect

of price to be paid by the appellants.

Both the Courts have returned a finding that the defendants

have encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs measuring 3 Marlas.

Such finding is based upon proper appreciation of evidence. It could not

be pointed that any evidence has been misread or not taken into

consideration. Findings of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be

permitted to be disputed by reappreciation of evidence in second appeal.

Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law

arises for consideration by this Court.

Dismissed.

06.10.2009                                     (HEMANT GUPTA)
Vimal                                              JUDGE