The court upheld that additional evidence in appeals is only admissible when adequately justified, and second appeals can only challenge legal errors, not factual determinations.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-333-C-2020

Prayer in this application filed under Section 151 CPC is for condonation of delay of 5 days in refiling the accompanying appeal.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an afÏdavit of applicant/appellant No.1(iv), the same is allowed and delay of 5 days in refiling the accompanying appeal is condoned.

RSA-127-2020 (O&M)

Present Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below; whereby the suit filed by the appellants for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs are in joint possession to the extent of 6/7^th share in the suit house as described in the head note of the plaint, has been dismissed with costs by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case as pleaded in the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is the widow of Sat Pal Bhogal; whereas plaintiffs No. 2 to 6 and the sole defendant are respectively the daughters and son of late Sh. Sat Pal Bhogal. It was the case of the plaintiffs that Sat Pal had been allotted a plot measuring 334 sq. yds. vide Allotment Letter dated 16.06.1998. Sat Pal had deposited a sum of Rs.3,340/- vide Bank Draft dated 15.06.1998 in favour of the Executive OfÏcer, Municipal Council Dina Nagar. However, the revenue record shows that the aforesaid land is entered as Shamlat Deh which is transferred in the name of the Municipal Committe, Dina Nagar vide Punjab Government Notification dated 30.04.1976. It was pleaded that it had been decided by the State Government that the aforesaid land would be divided amongst the 294 families who were settled on the land. Sat Pal was one amongst the 294 families who were occupying the said plot No. 27 measuring 334 sq. yds. After allotment of aforesaid plot, Sat Pal had constructed his house. It was pleaded in the plaint that later on Satpal had brought his married daughter/ plaintiff No.5, Sneh alongwith her husband to the suit house. Plaintiff No.5 had remained in the said house from May 1981 till March 1997 during which period her daughter was born on 16.03.1987 and son was born on 06.07.1995 in aforesaid plot No. 27. It was pleaded that accordingly, plaintiff No.5 along with her family were in actual possession of the disputed house. It was alleged that the defendant, his wife and other associates had started issuing threats to take possession of the disputed house forcibly and illegally. As such, Sat Pal had filed a suit for permanent injunction on 01.03.1997 in which vide order dated 03.03.1997 exparte ad interim injunction was granted in favour of Sat Pal. Defendant alongwith other defendants had put in appearance in that suit on 18.03.1997. During the pendency of the said suit, Sneh Lata had fallen seriously ill because of which she alongwith her family had gone to another house of Sat Pal. By taking advantage of absence of Sneh Lata/plaintiff No.5, defendant alongwith his associates had taken possession of disputed house on 16.03.1997; and had illegally taken away household articles of plaintiffs valued @ Rs.2,37,600/- which were not returned; and defendant had also demolished construction raised by plaintiffs. During pendency of the said first Civil Suit, application under Section 151 CPC was filed by Sat Pal for restoration of possession of disputed house. However, the suit of Sat Pal for permanent injunction was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006. The appeal against the said judgment was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2008. During the pendency of the said appeal, Satpal expired intestate on 30.12.2006 leaving behin