Regular Second Appeal No.1417 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1417 of 1987 Date of Decision:- 8.8.2011 Balwant Singh ...Appellant Versus Smt.Gurdevan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rajnish Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant. Nemo for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The crux of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant regular second appeal and emanating from the record, is that Balwant Singh son of Kehar Singh, appellant-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”), filed the suit and sought a decree for permanent injunction, restraining Smt.Gurdevan widow of Prem Singh respondent-defendant (for short “the defendant”), from interfering in his peaceful possession of land measuring 2 kanals, bearing Khewat No.10, khatauni No.186, khasra No.39M//18 min (2-0), situated in the area of village Mahlawala, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, inter-alia pleading that the suit land belonged to Central Government and was Banjar Kadim. The plaintiff converted it into cultivable land about 15 years ago and since then, he is in its cultivating possession. According to the plaintiff that the land in dispute was allotted to him, as per the policy of the Government, being a Rai Sikh, which was declared to be a backward community. He is in its actual possession, but the defendant intends to forcible oust him with the help of some other person, without any legal right. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff filed the suit for a decree of Regular Second Appeal No.1417 of 1987 -2- permanent injunction against the defendant, in the manner described hereinabove. 2. The defendant contested the suit and filed her written statement, in which, it was pleaded that she is full owner and in possession of the suit land and she had sown Mah and Sesame (Til) crops in kharif 1985. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in it. It will not be out of place to mention here that the defendant has stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the essential issues for adjudication of the case. 4. In order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases, the parties to the lis, produced on record the oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned judgment and decree dated 5.5.1986. 6. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the appellant- plaintiff filed the appeal, which was dismissed as well, by the Ist Appellate Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 16.1.1987. 7. The appellant-plaintiff still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgments and the decrees of the Courts below and preferred the present regular second appeal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. 9. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since the plaintiff is described in possession of the suit land in khasra girdawari (Ex.P2), so, the Courts below committed a legal mistake in dismissing his suit, sans merit. 10. As is evident from the record that plaintiff filed the suit on 1.8.1985 for a decree of permanent injunction on the ground that he is allottee and in Regular Second Appeal No.1417 of 1987 -3- possession of the land in dispute, which has been stoutly denied by the defendant. In that eventuality, a heavy burden of proof was on the plaintiff to prove his case by producing the cogent evidence, but he has miserably failed in this relevant connection. On the contrary, the bare perusal of copy of jamabandi for the year 1979-80 (Ex.D3) would reveal that Prem Singh son of Ram Singh, husband of the defendant, is shown to be in possession of the suit land. The same entries were described in the subsequent khasra girdawari for the year kharif 1980 to rabi 1985 (Ex.D1 and Ex.D2). After the death of Prem Singh, the name of Gurdevan (defendant) was depicted in possession of the land in dispute, in khasra girdawari (Ex.D2). Not only that, Ex.D4 is the copy of registered conveyance deed dated 17.1.1985, which would reveal that the property in dispute was allotted to the defendant. Once, the suit land was allotted to the defendant, vide conveyance deed (Ex.D4), then, the conveyance deed (Ex.P4) allegedly executed on 26.2.1986 produced on record, is meaning less, particularly when no cogent material is forth coming on record, as to whether the previous registered conveyance deed (Ex.D4) in favour of defendant's husband was ever cancelled or revoked. Thus, the question of subsequently allotting the land in dispute to the plaintiff did not arise at all. Therefore, it is proved on record that the defendant is in possession of the suit land and the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in it. Hence, the contrary contention of learned counsel “stricto sensu” deserves to be and is hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 11. Not only that, the trial Court has recorded the finding of fact that the plaintiff has got no right, title or interest in the suit land. Moreover, the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court, by means of impugned judgment dated 16.1.1987, the operative part of which is (para 5) as under:- 5. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx I have gone through all these documents very carefully with the help of the counsel for the parties. So far as Ex.P1 is concerned, it is in the name of Balwant Singh. Ex.P2 khasra girdawri also stands in the name of Regular Second Appeal No.1417 of 1987 -4- Balwant Singh and Ex.P.3 is the order dated 31.12.1980 regarding the handing over of the possession but these entries are not sufficient to establish the possession of the plaintiff over the land in question in view of the fact that all the earlier entries are in the name of the defendant for which reliance can be placed on Ex.D1 khasra girdawri from 1980 to 1985. Ex.D2 is also khasra girdawri and Ex.D3 is the jamabandi. Earlier this land was in the name of Prem Singh husband of the defendant Gurdevan and after his death this land was mutated in the name of Smt.Gurdevan. Apart from the revenue record there is conveyance deed Ex.D4 issued by the department regarding the sale of the land to the defendant and in lieu of that conveyance deed the possession of the suit land was handed over to the defendant by the revenue authorities at the spot. So, all the earlier entries exist in the name of the defendant and if any stray entry has come in the name of the plaintiff, that by itself would be of no use to hold that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land.” 12. Meaning thereby, the Courts below have taken into consideration and appreciated the entire relevant evidence brought on record by the parties in the right perspective. Having scanned the admissible evidence in relation to the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court has recorded the above-mentioned concurrent findings of fact. Such pure concurrent findings of fact based on the appraisal of evidence, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the powers conferred under section 100 CPC, unless and until, the same are illegal and perverse. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so as to take a contrary view, than that of well reasoned decision already arrived at by the Courts below, in this behalf. 13. No other meaningful argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to assail the findings of the Courts below in this respect. All other arguments, relatable to the appreciation of evidence, now sought to be urged on behalf of the appellant, in this relevant direction, have already been duly considered and dealt with by the Courts below. 14. Sequelly, the entire matter revolves around the re-appreciation and Regular Second Appeal No.1417 of 1987 -5- re-appraisal of the evidence on record, which is not legally permissible and is beyond the scope of second appeal. Since no question of law, muchless substantial, is involved, so, no interference is warranted, in the impugned judgments/decrees of the Courts below, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh & Anr. 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 688 : 2008 AIR (SC) 1749 in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 15. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 16. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 8.8.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No