IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 104 RSA-1464-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.05.2025 AMARJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER …..APPELLANTS Vs. LOVEPREET SINGH AND OTHERS …..RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. ******* DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This is plainffs Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, inasmuch as suit seeking permanent injuncon filed by them against defendants-Lovepreet Singh and others (respondents herein) was dismissed by the trial Court on 28.11.2019; and the appeal filed by them was dismissed by First Appellate Court on 21.11.2024. 2. The only contenon made by learned counsel for the appellants is that evidence on record has not been properly appreciated. 3. Heard. Perusal of the paper book would reveal that plainffs claimed that Sampuran Singh was owner in possession of land measuring 71 bighas 5 biswas, which was irrigated through electric motor connecon bearing A/c No. W-187, which was in the name of defendant No.3-Jagar Singh. A9er the death of Sampuran Singh, total agriculture land was inherited by four sons of said Sampuran Singh namely, Hazura Singh, Jagar Singh, Balbir Singh and Ajaib Singh. Hazura Singh died on 20.12.2013. Plainffs are the sons of said Hazura Singh. Plainffs claimed further that now they are in culvang possession of khasra Nos. 1279, 1280 and 1281 and that electric motor connecon in queson is installed in khasra No.1280. It was further the case of the plainffs that as the old bore well of the tube well became dysfunconal, they installed new bore with their own funds in khasra No.1280 and have been irrigang their land from the aforesaid PRIYANKA 2025.05.06 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1464-2025 (O&M) electric motor connecon and the tube well. Defendant No.3-Jagar Singh has sold 12 Bighas 17 ½ biswas land of his share to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by way of registered sale deed dated 13.08.2008 and in the said sale deed, there is also a reference of sale of ½ share of the electric motor connecon to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is also the allegaon that defendant Nos.1 and 2 were earlier irrigang their land through another tube well, but now in collusion with other defendants, they want to shi9 the electric motor connecon from khasra No.1280 to other khasra number, which is in their possession, without having any right to do so. 4.1 Defendants contested the suit. It was claimed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that in a family se@lement, prior to the death of Sampuran Singh, the land was paroned by way of an oral se@lement and ever-since then, all the sons of Sampuran Singh were residing separately. Khasra No.1280 had come to the share of Jagar Singh-defendant No.3, who was in actual physical possession thereof and had installed electric motor connecon in said khasra with his own funds and had taken electric motor connecon bearing A/c No. W-187. It is claimed that they have purchased the said land and that plainffs had no concern with the electric motor connecon in dispute, as they (defendants) had come in possession of khasra No.1280. They also submi@ed that on the basis of an affidavit dated 17.12.2014 given by Jagar Singh- defendant No.3, electric motor connecon was transferred in the name of defendant No.2. 4.2 Defendant No.3-Jagar Singh claimed that he had no intenon to shi9 the electric motor connecon from khasra No.1280 to other khasra number and that plainffs had the right to irrigate their land from the said tube well. 4.3 Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 supported the stand of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 by submiEng that electric motor connecon in queson was in the name of defendant No.3-Jagar Singh and based upon his affidavit, the same was transferred in the name of defendant No.2. Page 2 of 3 PRIYANKA 2025.05.06 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-1464-2025 (O&M) 5. Necessary issues were framed. Evidence produced by the pares was taken on record. Trial Court dismissed the suit on 28.11.2019. 6. While affirming the findings of the trial Court, learned First Appellate Court observed that plainff-Amarjit Singh, examined as PW-1, had categorically admi@ed that suit property had not been paroned by metes and bounds; that electric motor connecon was in the name of Jagar Singh- defendant No-3, installed in khasra No.1280; and that he (plainff) had no proof regarding the possession thereof. He also admi@ed that Jagar Singh has sold his land to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with half share of electric connecon and that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have installed new tube well connecon in khasra No.1275 and that plainffs did not ask them to give their half share of disputed connecon. Learned First Appellate Court also referred to the admission made by PW-2-Hem Raj and other witness PW-3 to the effect that tube well connecon was earlier in the name of Jagar Singh and that khasra No.1280 had later on fallen to the share of Naib Kaur-defendant No.2, who was in possession thereof. 7. Based upon the aforesaid evidence, the First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that plainffs had failed to prove their version to be in exclusive possession of khasra No.1280, in which the electric motor connecon was installed and on the other hand, there was sufficient evidence that said connecon had been transferred in the name of defendant No.2 on the basis of affidavit of defendant No.3, in whose name, the connecon was earlier exisng. 8. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, which are based upon proper appreciaon of evidence on record. As such, holding the appeal to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. 03.05.2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No PRIYANKA 2025.05.06 18:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document