In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ….. CM Nos.1920-21-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.596 of 2008 …. Date of decision:10.3.2008 Sarwan Singh …..Applicant-Appellant v. Kalyan Jang Sharma …..Respondent ….. Present: Mr. Devinder Lobana, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ….. S.S. Saron, J. CM No.1920-C/2008: For the reasons stated in CM application which is supported by an affidavit of the Clerk of the counsel for the applicant, the delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. The CM stands disposed of. CM No.1921-C/2008: For the reasons stated in CM application which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant, the delay in making good the deficiency in Court-fee is condoned. The CM stands allowed. R.S.A. No.596/2008: The appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant Sarwan Singh against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr whereby the appeal of the CM Nos.1920-21-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.596 of 2008 [2] defendant-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 22.7.2005 passed by the learned trial Court has been dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of land measuring 44 Kanals as detailed in the head note of the plaint. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant taking undue advantage of his old age and dismissal of the suit titled Kalyan Jang Sharma v. Sarwan Singh etc. on 1.10.2002 had taken forcible possession of the suit land and was in illegal possession of the same since Harri (Rabi) 2004. It is alleged that defendant was in possession of the suit land as a trespasser and the plaintiff being owner/co-sharer of the land is entitled to evict the defendant from the suit land. Despite request, he failed to do so and, therefore, suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the land was filed. The defendant denied the allegations and took the stand that plaintiff never remained in possession of the suit land at any point of time. Rather, he was in possession in his own right as `Gair Marausi’ tenant. The learned trial Court after considering the documents and record relied upon the order dated 1.10.2002 passed in the earlier suit between the parties wherein it was held that defendant-appellant was in illegal possession of the suit property. Therefore, once defendant was proved to be in unlawful possession of the disputed property he had got no right to remain in possession of the same. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. The learned lower appellate Court in appeal filed by the defendant placed reliance on the statement of the plaintiff-Kalyan Jang CM Nos.1920-21-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.596 of 2008 [3] Sharma (PW-1) and affidavit (Ex.PW.1/A) as also the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 (Ex.P.1) which shows that the plaintiff was owner of the property. In the Jamabandi his name had figured as co-owner in column 4 relating to ownership. The claim of the defendant-appellant that he was `Gair Marausi’ tenant was not established by leading any cogent documentary evidence. It was held that merely on the oral statement of Sarwan Singh (DW-1), it could not be believed that he was a `Gair Marausi’ tenant. Besides, Sarwan Singh (DW-1) in his cross-examination deposed that he had not taken the suit land on `Chakota’ (lease) from the plaintiff or other co-owner. The judgment dated 1.10.2002 (Ex.P.3) was taken into consideration and it was held that Sarwan Singh, defendant-appellant was in forcible and unlawful possession of the suit property. The learned lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and he has full right to seek injunction directing the defendant to vacate and hand over the same to him. Shri Devinder Lobana, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the defendant-appellant has not been able to show anything to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Besides, he has not been able to urge any question of law that may arise for consideration. The copy of the judgment dated 1.10.2002 (Ex.P.3) has been placed on record as Annexure-P.1. The said suit filed by the present plaintiff-Kalyan Jang Sharma for permanent injunction restraining Sarwan Singh from interfering in his uninterrupted possession was dismissed. In the said suit reliance was placed on the order dated 19.9.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector II Grade, Balachaur wherein it was observed that Sarwan Singh- CM Nos.1920-21-C of 2008 and R.S.A. No.596 of 2008 [4] defendant was in forcible possession of the suit property. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below and no question of law being involved in the present regular second appeal, no ground is made out for interfering with the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the regular second appeal is dismissed. March 10, 2008. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*