Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. - (1.) HAVING kept the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh vs. Harnam Singh & Anr. : 2008(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : AIR 2008 (SC) 1749 into focus, now the short and significant question, though important that arises for determination is, as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in the instant regular second appeal, so as to invoke the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 100 C.P.C or not ?
(2.) CONCISELY , the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present regular second appeal and emanating from the record, are that Amar Singh, Joginder Singh and Rattan Singh sons of Kishan Singh respondent -plaintiffs (for brevity "the plaintiffs") filed the suit against Baldev Singh son of Bhag Mal appellant -defendant (for short "the defendant") seeking a decree for possession of the plot, denominated by letters ABCD shown in red colour in the site plan (Ex.P1), situated in village Khudda, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. The case set up by the plaintiffs, in brief in so far as relevant, was that their predecessors -in -interest were owners of the house shown in yellow colour in the site plan. They gave it to Mehar Ali Marasi on Rayat basis with a specific condition that when he (Mehar Ali Marasi) would cease to occupy, the Rayat property would revert back to them. It was claimed that Mehar Ali Marasi migrated to west Pakistan, during the course of partition of the country in the year 1947 and the property shown in yellow colour reverted back to the father and uncle of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs that in the year 1928 -29, Mehar Ali forcibly raised construction over the suit property and blocked the passage, leading towards the lands of their predecessors -in -interest. They filed civil suit, bearing No.1152 of 1929 against Mehar Ali, which was decreed, on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Thereafter, the possession of the property in dispute was delivered to the father and uncle of plaintiffs in execution application filed before the civil Court. After their death, the plaintiffs became owners of the suit property. Now the defendant, who has no right, title or interest in it, has threatened to forcibly dispossess them from the property in question and raised construction during the pendency of the civil suit. After withdrawing the previous suit, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for a decree of possession.
(3.) LEVELLING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the plaintiffs claimed that they are owners of the disputed property, but the defendant has forcibly took possession of the property in dispute from them, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking a decree for possession against the defendant, in the manner indicated hereinabove.;