Regular Second Appeal No. 2562 of 1982 1 .. .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No. 2562 of 1982 (O&M) Date of Decision : January 9 , 2008 Sher Singh (Dead), through L.Rs. ... Appellants Versus Risal Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM : Hon`ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal. Present : Shri S.C.Kapoor, Senior Advocate, with Shri Harminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the appellants (Defendants). Shri Anand Bishnoi, Advocate, for the respondents (Plaintiffs). PRITAM PAL , J. This regular second appeal by defendants is directed against judgment and decree dated 25.9.1982 passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, whereby, suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent- plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the “respondents”) restraining them (appellant-defendants) (hereinafter referred to as the “appellants” ) from interfering in the disputed plot, bearing No. 43 as detailed in paragraph No.1 of the plaint, was decreed. Without going into any further details, suffice it to say that Roop Chand, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sher Singh, predecessor-in-interest of the Regular Second Appeal No. 2562 of 1982 2 .. .. appellants, on the allegation that the aforesaid plot was being owned and possessed by the respondents and the appellants have nothing to do with the said plot. Learned trial court after recording the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties had dismissed the suit of the plaintiff- respondents mainly on the ground that the documents, Ex. P1, Site plan; Ex.P2 Naksha 'Jeem` and Ex.P3 Report Roznamcha, relied upon by the respondents were not admissible in evidence as the concerned official, who had prepared those documents, was not examined and that one of the witnesses of the plaintiff, i.e. PW-3 Hazari has made contradictory statement on some points during his cross-examination. The first Appellate Court, reversed the aforesaid observations of the trial court and ultimately, the suit of the respondents was decreed. This is how feeling aggrieved, the appellants have come up in this appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Before I proceed further, it is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 25.7.2007, this Court had given last opportunity to the appellants for placing on record the substantial questions of law, if any, involved in this appeal. Today also, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants did not place any question of law before advancing arguments. However, he submitted that this Court has to decide as to whether the impugned judgment and decree, which are contrary to the evidence, can be sustained?. He then argued that in fact, the respondents have failed to establish the identity of the property in dispute before the courts below and as such, plot No. 43, as claimed in this case by the respondents, is not comprised in the khasra numbers, as Regular Second Appeal No. 2562 of 1982 3 .. .. depicted in Ex.P2 Naksha 'Jeem` and Ex.P3 Report Roznamcha, prepared by the Revenue authorities. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments, raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that this point of argument regarding the identity of the suit property has been raised in this Regular Second Appeal for the first time and as such the same cannot be taken into consideration. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid points of arguments put-forth on behalf of the parties and find that the contentions now raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of any merit inasmuch as, it is an admitted case of the parties that earlier both the parties, who are now successors-in-interest of Rup Chand and Sher Singh, were co-sharers of khasra No. 43 along with other landed properties. It is also not disputed that on the application for partition, moved before the Revenue authorities, the joint landed property of the parties was partitioned finally. In this regard, document Ex. P2, a certified copy of Naksha `Jeem' goes a long-way to show that the disputed plot, bearing No. 43 had fallen to the share of the respondents and finally, the possession of the same was also delivered by the revenue authorities to them vide Report Roznamcha dated 14.9.1978 (Ex. P3). It is also apparent that the appellants did not lay any challenge to the identity of the suit-property as described in para No.1 of the plaint and also in the aforesaid documents. Not only that, when these aforesaid documents were exhibited before the trial court, the appellants had not raised any objection. Besides that, when we read the Regular Second Appeal No. 2562 of 1982 4 .. .. statement of Hazari, PW-3, as a whole along with the aforesaid documents, then it is established that the respondents have successfully proved their possession over the plot in dispute. At this place, it is also pertinent to mention that it is not uncommon that in this part of country, we do not make any difference while calling some portion of the land as killa number or plot number. Besides that, the partition proceedings between the parties had attained finality way-back in the year 1978 and the said plot/killa No. 43 had admittedly fallen to the share of the respondents. In this view of my foregoing discussion, no interference is called for in any of the findings arrived at by the learned first Appellate Court. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. [ PRITAM PAL ] January 09 , 2008. JUDGE som