RSA NO. 3045 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 3045 of 2008 Decided on : 12-02-2009 Manohar Singh ....Appellant VERSUS Jaswinder Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant MAHESH GROVER, J This appeal is directed against the judgments of the learned Trial Court dated 8.11.2006 and the First Appellate Court dated 19.12.2007. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit by alleging that he is owner of 1/3rd share of the suit land which is abadi area and defendants are in possession of more area than their share and have raised enclosure wall and threatening to raise further construction over the same. The appellant who was the defendant contested the suit and pleaded that he is the bona fide purchaser of the property measuring 15 marlas out of Khasra No. 663 and 7 marlas out of Khasra No. 699 Khewat/Khatauni No. 8/8 and 9/9 respectively total measuring 1 kanal 12 marlas as entered in the jamabandi for the year 1995-96. The suit land was purchased from Santokh Singh and Amarjit Singh sons of Gurbachan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 6.7.2000. It is pleaded that Shankar Singh was predecessor-in-interest of the appellant enjoying the property ever RSA NO. 3045 of 2008 2 since he purchased till the time he died. It was also pleaded that mutation regarding purchase was also duly entered which are reflected from the Jamabandi for the year 1995-96. It is denied that the plaintiff was 1/3rd share holder of the joint khata and it is pleaded tht the property already stood partitioned and subsequent partition was impermissible under the law. This plea was raised by LRs of defendant no.1. Ranjit Singh who was arrayed as defendant no.2 pleaded that appellant is co-sharer to the extent of 1/4th share and supported the case of the plaintiff. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of separate possession? OPP. 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? OPP. 3. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD. 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 5. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 6. Whether plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD. 7. Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD. 8. Relief. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent and in appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant, findings of learned Triala Court were affirmed. RSA NO. 3045 of 2008 3 Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the aforesaid findings has primarily referredto the statement of the plaintiff-respondent wherein in his cross-examination he has stated that partition has already taken place. On the basis of it was contended that subsequent partition as sought for by him in the suit was not permissible under the law. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned judgments. In his testimony PW1 himself has admitted regarding partition having taken place which is totally contrary to the revenue records. In fact it has been noticed on the basis of evidence by both the Courts below that the property was in two partes; one regarding agricultural land and another regarding area which was situated in the abadi deh. The revenue records placed in the shape of Jamabandis show that the suit land is owned by the plaintiff-respondent and other co-sharers names have also been mentioned therein. Relevant record has been perused by this Courts as the same was produced before this Court. In this view of the matter when the revenue records speak to the contrary to the admission no benefit can be given to the appellant. It is not his case that the land has been partitioned and the parties are in settled possession. There is no such plea neither any evidence to that effect. The presumption of truth is always attached to the Jamabandis which are revenue records of right. Therefore, the findings recorded by both the Courts can neither be termed to be perverse to warrant interference in the regular second appeal. Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in case titled as 'Govindaraju versus Mariamman' 2005(2) SCC 500 that in regular second appeal interference should be made only when the findings are perverse. RSA NO. 3045 of 2008 4 Finding no perversity in the impugned judgments and having no substantial question of law arising therefrom, I am of the considered opinion that the present appeal is totally devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. February 12, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge