IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In appeals arising out of State of Punjab or State of Haryana, courts are not required to frame substantial questions of law as per Section 100 of CPC.
(2) Second Appeal – Ordinarily, in second appeal, court must not disturb facts established by lower court or first appellate court – However, this rule is not an absolute one.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Background

1. The present appeals stand filed against a judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal number 283 of 1984 dated 18th February, 2010¹ [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Judgment”] and in RA-RS-4-2C of 2010 and Civil Misc. No. 6287-C of 2010 dated 28th May, 2010 by which the court in such jurisdiction set aside the concurrent findings returned by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar in Civil Appeal No. 248 of 1981 dated 1st August, 1981 and by the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jullundur (now Jalandhar ) in Civil Suit No. 186 of 1981 dated 24th September, 1981.

2. The crux of these appeals lies in a property dispute wherein one of the two brothers namely, Faqir Singh had allegedly sold off the portion of property belonging to him that his brother Gurbachan Singh and he inherited from their father namely Suchet Singh who died intestate in the year 1942. Gurcharan Singh (Respondent herein/plaintiff) bought a piece of land belonging to Faqir Singh measuring 4 marlas vide sale deed dated 19th December, 1978² [hereinafter referred to as “disputed property”] for a consideration of Rs. 6,000. Thereafter, he was put in possession of such land however, it was forcibly taken by the Appellant Gurbachan Singh who stated that since Faqir Singh did not have any exclusive title or possession over the suit property, he could not purport to sell the same.

3. The Respondent (Gurcharan Singh) filed a suit for possession over such disputed property before the Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jullundur (now Jalandhar), who, having considered the evidence led, framed certain issues and returned findings in favour of the Appellant (Gurbachan Singh) herein. On 1st appeal, the learned Additional District Judge upheld the Judgment rendered by the court below on two grounds viz. that there is no document on record to prove that the disputed property had been given to Faqir Singh in a family partition and that if Suchet Singh had indeed affected partition 50 or 60 years ago, then there should have been an entry in the revenue record to that effect, however, no such entry is to be found.

Impugned Judgment

4. The learned single Judge framed the following questions of law (not substantial questions of law) for his consideration-whether the findings recorded by both the courts below by relying upon cogent evidence in the shape of admissions made by witnesses of the Respondents, can be termed to be perverse given the set of circumstances or not? And, whether a person, who is concededly the owner on the basis of valid the executed sale deed and having become co-sharer by virtue of the same, is entitled to protect his possession, if it is established that he is in settled possession of a specific area or not?

5. Referring to the testimonies of DW-1, DW-3 and DW-4 the learned judge noted a categorical admission that Suchet Singh had partitioned the property during his lifetime. It was also noticed that the above-named witnesses testified to the Respondents herein having carried out construction on the property purchased by him, the implication thereof being that after the execution of the sale deed, possession also rested with him. In view of the said facts the judge held that the Judgments of the courts below were result of “complete misreading of the evidence” and that the Appellant was entitled to the possession of the specific portion sold to him, thereby setting aside the concurrent findings of the courts below.

The Instant Appeals

6. The Judgment rendered in the regular 2nd appeal has been impugned before us on the ground that the High Court has transgressed the scope of second appeal; that the purchaser of a co-share does not have a right to possession [this ground is urged on the basis of 3 Judgment rendered by this court in Jai Singh vs. Gurmej Singh, (2009) 15 SCC 747, Ramdas vs. Sitabai, (2009) SCC 444 and Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24] and, that the High Court had erred in it