R.S.A.No.2179 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2179 of 2009 Date of Decision : 12.08.2009 Chatarbhuj ...Appellant Versus Roshan and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed. The learned first Appellate Court has taken into consideration jamabandi for the year 1994-95 (Ex.P-1) and khasra girdawari (Ex.P-2) for the subsequent period recording Roshan and Kishore, plaintiffs, in possession as co-sharers. The documents Ex.P-3, the jamabandi for the year 1980-81 and Ex.P-4 khasra girdawari, which again records the possession of the plaintiffs. The documents Exs.P-5 to P-7 Roznamachas were taken into consideration by the learned first Appellate Court to support the change in the entries in favour of the plaintiffs. On the other hand, jamabandi for the year 1989-90 Ex.D-1 produced by the defendant was taken into consideration and it was found that such jamabandi records the possession of co-owners. The names of R.S.A.No.2179 of 2009 2 the plaintiffs are not recorded as cultivators. It was found that the entry in the name of Chatarbhuj-defendant is a stray entry and, therefore, on the basis of such entry, the decree for injunction cannot be refused in favour of the plaintiffs. The findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are based upon the entries in the revenue record regarding the possession of the plaintiffs except Ex.D-1, which is jamabandi for the year 1989-90. It cannot be said that the defendant is in established possession as against the plaintiffs. Findings of fact recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are sought to be disputed by reappreication of evidence. I do not find that the findings recorded by the learned first Appellate Court are suffering from any misreading of evidence or otherwise unjust. Consequently, I do not find that any substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court. Dismissed. 12.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE