IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2008 Date of Decision: 01.4.2009 Balbir Singh ...Appellant. Versus Gram Panchayat of village Bali Qutabpur and another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Plaintiff No.2-Balbir Singh having lost before the courts below has filed the present regular second appeal in this Court against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sonepat, whereby that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ganaur dated 11.10.2007 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction was confirmed with a modification of deleting the special costs of Rs.3000/- imposed by the trial court. The facts, according to the plaintiffs, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that plaintiff No.1, Fateh Chand, had been in actual and physical cultivating possession as a co-sharer of the agricultural land measuring 45 kanals, whereas plaintiff No.2-Balbir Singh was in actual and physical cultivating possession as a co-sharer R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2008 -2- of the agricultural land measuring 37 kanals 12 marlas, fully detailed in para 1 (a) and (b) respectively of the plaint, situated within the revenue estate of village Bali Qutabpur, Tehsil Ganaur, District Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as the “suit land”), for the last more than 30/35 years, but in the revenue records, the same had been shown in possession of the defendant-Gram Panchayat, wrongly and illegally. It was pleaded that the defendant had also admitted before the Collector, Sonepat that the plaintiffs were in cultivating possession of the suit land and, therefore, it had no right to dispossess them from the same forcibly and unlawfully. Feeling aggrieved against the action of the defendant, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the revenue entries showing the suit land in possession of the defendant were illegal, null and void and were liable to be changed in their favour. The plaintiffs also sought a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in their peaceful possession over the suit land. The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement and raising various preliminary objections therein. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no concern with the suit land as they were not in possession of the same. The suit land was leased out by the defendant in favour of one Suraj Mal. It was further pleaded that the revenue entries in favour of the defendant were legal and valid. Besides denying the other averments made in the plaint, a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. On appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties on the issues framed in this case, the trial R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2008 -3- court held that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land as alleged and, therefore, they were not entitled to the injunction as prayed for. The trial court further held that the revenue entries made in favour of the defendant-Gram Panchayat were legal and valid. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with special costs of Rs.3000/-. Plaintiff No.2, thereafter, took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2008 dismissed the appeal with a modification that the special costs of Rs.3000/- imposed upon plaintiff No.2 by the trial court would be deleted. Hence, the present appeal by plaintiff No.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments with his assistance. Learned counsel for the appellant has made an endeavour to persuade this Court to re-appreciate the evidence available on record so as to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below. However, he could not point out any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as the lower appellate court warranting interference by this court in the regular second appeal. The courts below had recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs had failed to establish their possession over the suit land. Further, the lower appellate court had recorded a finding that the best evidence in the form of jamabandis, khasra girdawaris etc. could be available with the plaintiffs to prove their possession over the suit land, but the same was not produced by them. R.S.A. No. 3390 of 2008 -4- No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. April 01, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE