NIRMAL SINGH Vs. NIRMAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of Surjit Singh/defendant no.4 are in second appeal against the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below whereby, the suit of respondent/plaintiff Amrik Singh for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patti vide decree dated 3.4.2008 and the findings were affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran vide judgement and decree dated 30.4.2011.

(2.) ALONGWITH the appeal CM No.6063-C/2012 has been filed seeking condonation of 289 days' delay in filing the appeal. Counsel for the appellants heard. It is not in dispute that Surjit Singh/defendant no.4 alongwith plaintiff/Amrik Singh and one Hardip Singh purchased 80K- 4M of land (suit land) from the original owner Punjab Singh vide sale deed dated 23.12.1982 (Exhibit P1) alongwith 5 HP tubewell connection bearing No. JB-938. Thus, it is also not in dispute that the plaintiff/ Amrik Singh became a co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land alongwith use of the tubewell connection to the extent of his share. Subsequently, since the defendant no.4-Surjit Singh interfered with the use of tubewell connection, plaintiff-Amrik Singh filed a suit for declaration that he is in possession of the said tubewell connection as co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share, installed in the suit land, with the consequential relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the Punjab State Electricity Board from transferring the connection in the name of Surjit Singh exclusively.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below since no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. In view of aforesaid findings on merit, no orders are required to be passed on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.