L.N. Mittal, J.@mdashAchhar Singh defendant is in second appeal having failed in both the courts below.
2. Respondent-plaintiff Satnam Singh filed suit against defendant -appellant Achhar Singh alleging that Didar Singh-grandfather of the defendant-appellant was owner of 43 kanals 18 marlas land. On his death, his two sons Swaran Singh and defendant''s father Resham Singh inherited the same in equal shares. The plaintiff purchased 21 kanals 19 marlas land being the share of Swaran Singh in the aforesaid total land along with share in electric motor of tubewell bearing electricity connection No. APKF 835 installed in the suit land, vide sale deed dated 07.03.2006. Accordingly, plaintiff is owner in possession of the said land and is irrigating the same from the aforesaid tubewell. Plaintiff has also filed petition for partition of the joint land, which is pending before Assistant Collector First Grade. The defendant started interfering with user of the electricity motor connection by the plaintiff and started obstructing the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering into the peaceful use of motor/electric connection by the plaintiff for irrigating his aforesaid land.
3. The defendant admitted that his grandfather was owner of the total land measuring 43 kanals 18 marlas and on his death, his two sons Swaran Singh and Resham Singh inherited the same. Defendant, however, denied other plaint allegations. It was denied that plaintiff has purchased 21 kanals 19 marlas land from Swaran Singh with right in electricity motor connection. Sale deed dated 07.03.2006 is false and sham transaction. Swaran Singh had no right to execute the sale deed. According to oral family settlement between Swaran Singh and Resham Singh in the presence of relatives and family members, agricultural land in suit fell to the share of defendant''s father Resham Singh, whereas a house and a taxi service fell to the share of Swaran Singh. Various other pleas were also raised.
4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 09.11.2009, decreed the plaintiff''s suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the case file.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Swaran Singh had no right to sell 21 kanals 19 marlas land or to sell the electric motor connection in question. The contention cannot be accepted. Admittedly, defendant''s grandfather Didar Singh was owner of 43 kanals 18 marlas and on his death, his two sons Swaran Singh and Resham Singh inherited the same in equal shares. Consequently, Swaran Singh was owner of 21 kanals 19 marlas land and half share in the electric motor connection installed in the aforesaid total land. He sold the same to the plaintiff, who thus stepped into the shoes of Swaran Singh. The defendant has miserably failed to prove that entire suit land had fallen to the share of his father in alleged family settlement. There is concurrent finding by both the courts below on appreciation of evidence. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal in any manner so as to warrant interference in second appeal. On the contrary, even defendant''s attorney Roopjot Singh (DW-1) and another witness Kundan Singh (DW-2) have admitted that plaintiff is co-sharer with defendant and is in possession of land measuring 21 kanals 19 marlas land. The electricity connection stands in the joint land, which has not yet been partitioned. Transfer of motor connection by Swaran Singh in favour of defendant''s father Resham Singh is also not proved. Copy of affidavit dated 25.05.1998 has been produced, but the original has not been produced in evidence. Since the electricity connection stands in joint land, and plaintiff has half share in joint land, the plaintiff is entitled to use the said connection for irrigating the land of his share. There is no illegality in the impugned judgments of the courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
