GOPI RAM Vs. RAMU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court on 19.11.1990 and affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court on 08.09.1992 whereby suit for injunction from dispossessing the plaintiff from portion ABCD of Baithak was dismissed. The plaintiff filed the civil suit claiming that in a family settlement such portion ABCD has fallen to his share and he has been residing separately from the defendant in the said portion peacefully. The defendant contested the suit, denying family settlement. The plaintiff was not admitted to be owner in possession of the disputed portion. It was alleged that the plaintiff is in service at Hisar and residing separately and that plaintiff has no concern whatsoever with the area in question. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed the following issues: -

(2.) THE learned trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the parties, returned a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove his ownership over the disputed property. To return such finding, the learned trial Court has examined statements of plaintiff as PW -1, Parkash S/o. Ram Karan as PW -2 and that of DW -1 Chand Ram, Ramu as DW -2 and Meer Singh as DW -3. It was found that the electricity bills Ex. D1 to Ex. D16 are in the name of defendant No. 1. Such findings were affirmed in appeal.

(3.) IN the present second appeal, the plaintiff -appellant has not raised any substantial question of law. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal shows that findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are sought to be disputed for re -appreciation of evidence. Since the findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in the present second appeal. Consequently, the present regular second appeal is dismissed.