RSA No.4544 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4544 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: May 11, 2011. Mohammada and others. .. Appellants VERSUS Akbar and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the appellants. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants from forcibly dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the property in dispute stands decreed by the Courts below holding that the plaintiff- respondent have been able to establish on the basis of the revenue . . . 1 RSA No.4544 of 2010 (O&M) entries w.e.f., 1968-69 EX.P5 to EX.P15, that they are in occupation as Gair Marusi on batai/tihai. Counsel for the appellants has contended that the defendants-appellants had filed a counterclaim challenging the revenue entries and had also raised a plea that the property in dispute was mortgaged vide EX.D1 by Lakhi Bai on 20.04.1986 to Hashmat and Bashir etc. He has also argued that vide sale deed EX.D2 dated 21.01.1974, the property in dispute had been sold to successor-in-interest of Hashmat and Bashir etc. It is vehemently urged that the mortgage deed of the year 1956 and sale deed dated 21.01.1974, EX.D1 & EX.D2, falsify the claim of the plaintiff- respondent regarding their possession on the property in dispute. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and carefully gone through the judgments passed by the Courts below. EX.D1, the alleged mortgage deed has been considered by the Courts below to arrive at a conclusion that the said mortgage deed does not disprove the possession of the plaintiff as a mortgage deed is of a particular share and not the specific numbers. So far as sale deed EX.D2, is concerned, it has been considered by the Courts below to arrive at a conclusion that the said sale deed does not prove that the plaintiff Nooru was not possessing the suit land. The plea of possession is not established from the contents of the sale deed. The Courts below on the basis of consistent revenue record in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents arrived at a concurrent finding of fact regarding the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents on the . . . 2 RSA No.4544 of 2010 (O&M) suit land as tenants. The mortgage deed dated 20.04.1966, in favour of Hashmat and Bashir is not sufficient enough to rebut the presumption of truth attached to the persistent revenue entries for a period of 40 years in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. No ground is made out for interference in the said finding of fact. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 11, 2011. rka . . . 3