RSA No.4961 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. RSA No.4961 of 2009 Date of decision:11.8.2010 Tula Ram .....Appellant vs. Smt. Prem and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.B.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the appellant. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent No.2 from dispossessing the plaintiff-respondent from the suit land, was dismissed. As per the averments, the suit land was purchased by Gulzari from one Mangu Ram vide registered sale deed dated 8.3.1963 and on Gulzari's death the same was inherited by his three sons, three daughters and wife which includes appellant and respondent No.1. Later on respondent No.1 sold her 1/7th share to respondent No.2 vide sale deed dated 28.11.1995 and mutation was also sanctioned in this regard on 17.11.1997. Respondent No.2 got issued warrant of possession in partition proceedings filed by him before the revenue authorities without disclosing the fact that appellant is in exclusive possession of land in dispute on the basis of aforesaid perpetual lease deed executed by Mangu Ram in his favour. As per the further averments, the case of the appellant is that he was in possession of the land in dispute as a perpetual lease holder on the basis of Pattanama dated 25.1.1963 registered on 28.1.1963, and was continuing in RSA No.4961 of 2009 2 possession. It is the further case of the appellant that he was also owner in possession to the extent of 1/7th share being co-sharer also and since his lease hold rights were intact, he cannot be first determining his lease hold rights. Both the courts below dismissed the case of the appellant holding that Pattanama Ex.P1, the very basis of the suit, was never acted upon and a finding of fact has been recorded that appellant was merely of 5-6 years of age at the time of execution of the aforesaid Pattanama, which obviously was created for some other purposes i.e. to defeat the right of pre-emption. The Courts below have recorded a finding of fact on the basis of evidence. There is nothing on record on the basis of which the aforesaid finding of fact can be interfered with. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge August 11, 2010 rk