RSA No. 1581 of 2005(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1581 of 2005(O&M) Date of Decision: March 31 , 2010 Ramesh and another ...... Appellants Versus Ram Diya (since deceased) through LRs and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Vikram Punia, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents claiming a declaration that the respondent No.1 was in possession as a tenant over the land in dispute who had died in the year 1973 whereafter the respondents had continued to be tenants over the land in dispute and that the change of revenue entries in favour of the appellants was illegal and inoperative against their rights. Both the Courts below have found that on a portion of the land in dispute the father of respondent No.1 was indeed a tenant; that the father RSA No. 1581 of 2005(O&M) 2 of the respondent No. 1 had died in the year 1973; that the tenancy was heritable; and further that when the revenue record was changed the mandatory procedure of notice was not followed. The case of the appellants on the other hand was that the owner had entered into possession of the land after the death of the father of respondent No.1 and a further plea was taken that when the revenue record was changed, notice had been served upon respondent No. 1 by way of affixation. Both the Courts disbelieved the version of the appellants that possession had changed hands after the death of Badlu since no reason was shown therefor and also since the tenancy was admittedly heritable. The Courts also found that the affixation on which reliance was placed by the appellants was not as per the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Consequently the plea of the respondents was affirmed and the suit as mentioned above was dismissed. The following questions have been proposed:- i) Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of misreading the evidence? ii)Whether merely on the basis of presumptions, the plaintiff- respondent can be deemed to be in possession of the property without there being any documentary evidence at all? It would be seen that both the questions proposed are pure questions of fact. Learned counsel has taken me through the findings of both the Courts below recorded thereon but has not been able to persuade me that the said findings are either based on no evidence or on such perverse misreading of the evidence so as to be liable for interference under Section 100 CPC. RSA No. 1581 of 2005(O&M) 3 Consequently holding both the questions proposed against the appellants, this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE March 31 , 2010 sunita