IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. *** RSA No. 100 of 2008 Date of decision : 23.1.2008 Parkash --- Appellant Versus Rameshwar and others --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate for caveator (respondent No.1) --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is defendants’ second appeal. A suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff-Rameshwar, respondent no.1 herein, was decreed by the trial court. The appeal at the instance of the defendant before the first appellate court was dismissed. Originally, the suit was filed against defendant-Chand Ram. A perusal of the record shows that during the pendency of the suit, defendant-Chand Ram died and his sons Sombir, Parkash and daughters Bimla and Vinod were brought on record as his legal representatives. Even one of the aforesaid sons of defendant-Chand Ram, namely, Sombir also died on 27.10.2007 (as per averments made in Civil Misc. No. 329-C of 2008 filed in this Court for bringing on record the legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased). Respondent nos. 2 RSA No. 100 of 2008 (O&M) to 5 who of course, are proforma respondents in this appeal, thus, are the legal representatives of deceased-Sombir son of Chand Ram, the original defendant. The facts leading to the dispute are that the plaintiff claiming himself to be in cultivating possession of 1/4th share of suit land measuring 49 Kanals 3 Marlas situated in village Kadma, Tehsil Dadri in the capacity of Ghair Mourisi pleaded that the suit land had not been partitioned as yet and the defendant with a view to take forcible possession of the best portion out of the said land, was interfering in his possession. The plaintiff, thus, prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant-Chand Ram from doing so. The defendant, on the other hand, pleaded that the suit land was owned and possessed by “shamlat Thola Khubi Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewat” and he and the plaintiff were co-sharers in the suit land along with others. It was further pleaded that the defendant was not in possession of the suit land as “Ghair Maurisi” but on the basis of a wrong revenue entry he is in possession of 1/4th share as per report no. 73, which report, of course, had been cancelled by the Assistance Collector, IInd Grade, Badhra, but that order has been stayed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Dadri. The trial court on appreciation of the evidence returned a finding that the plaintiff was is in possession of the suit land as a co- sharer, which had not been partitioned as yet, and thus he was entitled to seek injunction against the defendant. A decree for permanent injunction was thus, passed on 15.9.2004 restraining the defendant from taking possession of the suit land from the plaintiff illegally, and also 2 RSA No. 100 of 2008 (O&M) from interfering in his possession except in due course of law. This finding of possession of the plaintiff over the suit land has been affirmed by the first appellate court, again on appreciation of the evidence and examining the law on the subject and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.9.2007. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant could not pin-point any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree so as to persuade this Court to interfere there with, in second appeal. The appellate court noticed that Sombir DW-3, who is none-else but the son of defendant, had during the course of his statement in a way admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. Further, the name of the defendant-Chand Ram did not figure even as co-sharer in the jamabandis pertaining to the suit land produced by the plaintiff and the jamabandi Exhibit D-3 produced by the defendant, wherein he had been shown in possession to the extent of 1/5th share, did not relate to the suit land. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law is shown to have arisen for the consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) January 23, 2008 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 3