RSA No.1831 of 2009 - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1831 of 2009 Date of decision:13.08.2010. Suresh ...Appellant Versus Smt. Kalawati and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. R.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The present appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 against judgment and decree of the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, has been decreed. The case set up by the plaintiff is that he is the owner in possession of land measuring 0 Kanal 03 Marlas falling in Khewat No.226, Khatauni No.303, Plot No.75//20/34. The defendants having no right, title or interest in the property in dispute, but are adamant to interfere in his possession. The suit was contested only by defendant No.3/appellant as other defendants were proceeded against ex-parte. He alleged that he is the owner in possession of RSA No.1831 of 2009 - 2 - ****** the property in dispute and averred that the entry in the revenue record in favour of the plaintiff is because of his collusion with panchayat and revenue officers. Both the Courts below, after appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiff is recorded as owner in the jamabandi for the year 1991-92 (Ex.P1) and for the year 2001-02 (Ex.P8). The possession of the plaintiff was also found by both the Courts below, whereas the case set up by defendant No.3/appellant was not believed for the reasons that he did not enter the witness box to depose about his ownership right or possession over the land in dispute. In view of the finding of fact recorded by the Courts below about possession and ownership of the plaintiff on the basis of evidence especially when defendant No.3/appellant did not enter the witness box, I do not find any reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Courts below. Moreover, no question of law much-less substantial has been raised by learned counsel for the appellant as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as such the present appeal is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. August 13, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE