R.S.A. No. 343 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 343 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.1.2011 Balwinderjit Kalia ......Appellant Versus Balwant Singh alias Banta Singh .......Respondent ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. Mehtab Singh Chicha, Advocate, for the appellant. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Balwant Singh @ Banta Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land bearing khasra No.448 min (8-7), 449 (3-13). The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was owner in possession of the suit land bearing khasra No.448 min (8-7), 449 (3-13). The plaintiff had constructed 11 rooms and 2 verandas in the suit property. The plaintiff had also installed a water pump in the suit property. Defendant had no concern with the suit property. Defendant in his written statement averred that the suit property was owned by Shamlat Tarf Hasab Rasad. Defendant was in possession of R.S.A. No. 343 of 2011 (O&M) 2 the suit land for the last more than 30 years. The plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. The Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide its judgment had held that the plaintiff was not in possession of any part of the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court :- “1.Whether plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands ? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from the court ? OPD. 6. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 12.6.2008, the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baba Bakala decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant preferred an appeal. The appeal, filed by the defendant, was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 19.8.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Courts below had misread the evidence on record. The part of the suit property R.S.A. No. 343 of 2011 (O&M) 3 formed road and hence the decree qua possession could not be passed in favour of the plaintiff. In another suit, filed by the plaintiff, he had not been held to be in possession of the suit property. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the suit property was owned by Shamlat Tarf Hasab Rasad. A perusal of Ex.P-3, copy of jamabandi placed on record as Annexure A-3, reveals that the khasra number in dispute were owned by Shamlat Tarf Hasab Rasad. In column No.4, it has been mentioned that Kulwant Singh, seller, had sold the suit property to Balwant Singh-plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff had become owner of the suit property in view of the sale executed by Kulwant Singh in his favour. A presumption of truth is attached to the entries in the jamabandi. Defendant, however, had failed to rebut the said presumption. The plea taken by the defendant that the Additional District Judge, Amritsar had held vide its judgment that the plaintiff was not owner of the suit property is also liable to be rejected as a perusal of the impugned judgment passed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar reveals that the earlier suit in which plaintiff was not held to be owner of the suit property pertained to khasra No.452/2. Hence, the said case had no relevance with the present case as the khasra numbers in the present case are different. Moreover, the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed for permanent injunction and the defendants have been restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been described to be owner in possession of the suit property. The suit of the R.S.A. No. 343 of 2011 (O&M) 4 plaintiff has not been decreed for possession as alleged by the counsel for the appellant nor the plaintiff had filed a suit for possession. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any misreading of evidence by the Courts below. Hence, there is no force in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 21, 2011 Anand