RSA No. 1857 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 1857 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.5.2011. Pala & others .......Appellants Vs. Smt. Roshni & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. J.P.Dhull, Advocate for the appellants. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from the suit land. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner of Jumla Malkan Va Digar Haqdaran Hasab Rasad Rakba. The plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit land as a co-sharer. The defendants had no concern with the suit land but were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly from the same. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1 to 10, in their written statement, averred that they were in exclusive possession of Khasra No. 11 and 12 of Rect. No. 40 being co-sharer in Jumlan Malkan. A tubewell had been installed by the defendants and the connection had been obtained in the name of Singh Ram. The defendants had purchased RSA No. 1857 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the suit land along with other land from Singh Ram along with the tubewell connection. In fact on 1.12.2001, the plaintiff alongwith other persons had tried to dispossess the defendants from Khasra Nos. 11 and 12. The plaintiff and other persons were armed with deadly weapons and had caused grievous injuries on the person of the defendants party. FIR No. 171 dated 1.12.2001 had been registered against the plaintiff and others at Police Station Siwan under Sections 307, 323, 148, 506 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further averred that the plaintiff in connivance with revenue officials had got prepared forged entries in the khasra girdwawri in his name. No notice had been issued qua the change of entries in the khasra girdawri to the defendants by Halqa Patwari.. Defendants No. 11 to 25, in their written statement, averred that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The entries in the khasra girdawri, depicting the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property, were illegal. No notice had been issued by the Halqa Patwari before effecting change in the khasra girdawari. The answering defendants were in exclusive possession of Khasra Nos. 15, 16, 25/1 of Rect. No. 39 and Khasra No. 20/1 of Rect. No. 40. The said Khasra numbers were being irrigated by the answering defendants with the help of tubewell installed by defendant No.1. Plaintiff was not a proprietor of the village. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the permanent injunction as sought? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has concealed true and material facts the court, if so to what effect? OPD RSA No. 1857 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 3. Relief.” Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2007, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 1 to 10 preferred an appeal and the Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 17.7.2009, dismissed the said appeal. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No. 1 to 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. Plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging therein that he was in exclusive possession of the suit property and the defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession. Both the courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, have given a finding of fact that plaintiff was in exclusive possession of the suit property. It has been noticed by the learned District Judge that the appellants had filed the petition before Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Collector, Guhla for correction of entries in the khasra girdawri qua the suit land but the same were dismissed. Hence, the appellants had failed to establish that they were in possession of the suit land. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 13, 2011 Gurpreet