R.S.A.No.2236 of 2009 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.2236 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:July 20, 2009 Ajit Singh ---Appellant versus Dharam Singh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. DPS Kahlon,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in in their peaceful possession over the suit land. Additional Civil Judge ( Sr. Division), Baba Bakala, vide judgment and decree dated 17.3.2005 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 28.2.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendant No. 1. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 4 of its judgment read as under:- “In nut shell, the fact of the case are that the plaintiffs, claiming R.S.A.No.2236 of 2009 (O&M) {2} themselves to be in cultivating possession over the suit property, preferred the suit for injunction on the plea that originally the suit property owned by Shamlat Patti Jeena of village Chajjalwadi was cultivated by their father Chanchal Singh being a co-sharer in the Shamlat and after his death, plaintiffs are in cultivating possession thereof. The defendants have got no right or concern in the same, but are threatening to forcibly interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land, of which they have no right. The plaintiffs requested the defendants not to do so, but they have refused to accede their request, leading to the filing of the present suit. On notice, defendant No. 1 appeared and contested the suit while defendants No. 2 to 9 were proceeded against ex parte. In his written statement, the defendant No. 1 took preliminary objections regarding locus standi and pleaded that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit land, which is owned by Shamlat Pati Jina Chandian Ki. A committee was formed of six members by Patti Chandian Ki and a resolution was passed authorizing the defendants to contest the suit. It was submitted that the said committee used to lease out the suit land every year and at present it has been leased out to one Sukhdev Singh son of Dalip Singh on yearly basis and being lessee, he is in possession of the suit property. It was submitted that the entries in the revenue record are wrong and application for correction of Khasra Girdawari has R.S.A.No.2236 of 2009 (O&M) {3} been filed, which is pending and the plaintiffs are trying to take undue advantage of wrong revenue entries. The possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property was denied and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- (1)Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for permanent injunction? OPD (3)Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their own action conduct from filing the present suit? OPD (5)Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD (6)Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC? OPD (7)Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands OPD (8)Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. As per the revenue record, Chanchal Singh was recorded to be in cultivating possession of the land. His possession was duly reflected in the copy of the jamabandi Ex. P-1. Plaintiffs are the sons of Chanchal R.S.A.No.2236 of 2009 (O&M) {4} Singh and after the death of Chanchal Singh, plaintiffs had been shown to be in cultivating possession of the suit property as Gair Marusi. Plaintiffs placed on record Khasra Girdawari from the year 2000 to Sauni 2005. Plaintiffs had filed this suit on 2.8.2005 and hence the changed entries in the khasra Girdawari placed on record as Ex. D. 72 for Sauni 2007 could not be taken in consideration as the same had been done during the pendency of the suit. Both the courts below have observed, after appreciating the evidence on record, that the defendants had failed to establish their possession over the suit property. The said finding of fact recorded by the courts below, cannot be interfered with in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 20, 2009 PARAMJIT