R.S.A.No. 3064 of 2007 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 3064 of 2007 Date of Decision:July 06, 2009 Gurmail Singh and others ---Appellants versus Shingara Singh ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.G.S.Punia, Advocate, for the respondent. *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff- Shingara Singh son of Sh. Amar Singh filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from interfering into his peaceful possession over the land comprised in Khewat No. 24 Khatauni No. 35. Rectangle No. 33//Killa No. 12/7-2, 8/5-4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief is that he along with his brothers were owner in possession of the suit property. Defendants who had no concern with the property in dispute, were interfering in his peaceful possession. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed. R.S.A.No. 3064 of 2007 -2- Defendants in their amended written statement denied the contentions made in the plaint. It was averred that there was an un-metalled path leading to the house and plots of the defendants out of the suit property. The path was marked with letters A, B,C,D,E and F in the site plan. It was being used by the defendants as well as the entire Ramdasia basti for the last 50 years. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property ? OPP (2)Whether the defendants are interfering in possession of the plaintiff illegally? OPP (3)Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP (4)Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP (5)Relief. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2005, Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Amloh dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was allowed by the learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. As per the revenue record i.e. copy of the jamabandi for the years 1997-98, plaintiff along with his brothers Balkar Singh and Nazar R.S.A.No. 3064 of 2007 -3- Singh are owners in possession of the suit property. Entries in the jamabandi have a presumption of truth. Although the said presumption is rebuttable but the defendants had failed to rebut the same and establish that in fact there is a passage in the property in dispute. The defendants cannot be allowed to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff as he is in possession of the suit property as an owner. In these circumstances, learned District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib has rightly restrained the defendants from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the disputed property as the plaintiff along with his brothers is co-owner in possession of the same. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2009 PARAMJIT