RSA No.3719 of 2005 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 7.1.2008 Ishwar Singh and others .. Appellants VERSUS Arvinder Kaur …Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) This is defendants' Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Respondents filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellants/defendants in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Gurgaon with respect to land measuring 4 kanals 8 marlas being 1/3rd share of the total land measuring 13 kanals 4 marlas. The allegations in the plaint are that the suit land was purchased by the plaintiffs from Smt. Hukam Kaur widow of Attar Singh, resident of Village Jharsa who was the exclusive owner in possession of the RSA No.3719 of 2005 :2: land. Reference is made to registered sale deeds dated 21.12.1995, 22.12.1995 and 29.12.1995. It was alleged that defendants want to forcibly grab the property. On being put to notice, defendants/appellants filed written statement of defence denying the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It was also denied that the plaintiffs were exclusive owner of the suit land. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues:- “1.Whether the plaintiffs are owners in possession over the suit land mentioned in para 1 (a) to 1 (c ) of the plaint? OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed? OPP 3.Whether the plaintiffs have concealed the true and material facts from the court? If so to what effect? OPD 4.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5.Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 6.Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 7.Relief.” The main issues are issues no.1 and 2. With a view to prove these issues, the plaintiffs produced the evidence regarding the execution and registration of the sale deeds. They also brought on RSA No.3719 of 2005 :3: record copy of Jamabandi for the year 1994-95 which indicates that at time time of sale, Hukam Kaur was the exclusive owner in possession in possession on the basis of the partition. The plaintiffs also placed on record copy of Mutation No.509 which also reflected that Hukam Kaur got the suit property on the basis of partition in partition proceedings by the Tehsildar concerned. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 17.5.2004 decreed the suit. Aggrieved of the aforesaid judgment and decree, present appellants/defendants in the suit preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. This appeal also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.2.2005. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. The Appellate Court relied upon not only on the mutation and Jamabandi, but also the record of the Khasra Girdawari. The present appeal has been accordingly preferred against the aforesaid judgments and decrees. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the mutation does not confer title and the alleged partition was only on papers and it was never implemented. From the perusal of the judgments impugned, it is abundantly clear that no such plea was ever raised by the defendants/appellants and on the basis of the evidence both the courts below came to the positive finding regarding the partition having taken place between the parties in partition proceedings which fact is also evident from the Khasra Girdawari and the Jamabandi whereas Hukam Kaur was shown as exclusive owner in possession of the suit property. RSA No.3719 of 2005 :4: Neither the Jamabandi nor the mutation or even the khasra girdawari has been challenged in the suit or in any other separate proceedings. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. I find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 7.1.2008 MFK