Regular Second Appeal No. 1539 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1539 of 2009 Date of decision : September 28, 2010 Gopal Krishan Duggal ....Appellant versus Major Dass and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate, for the appellant Mr. Kashmir Singh, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Gopal Krishan Duggal having remained unsuccessful in both the courts below has approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. Respondents-plaintiffs Major Dass and Darshan Dass filed suit against appellant-defendant alleging that they had already filed a suit for 13 kanals 3 marlas land of which they are owners in possession. They also claimed to be in possession of 4 kanals more land. Defendant also filed a suit against the plaintiffs alleging himself to be President of Mandir Bhai Mul Chand but the said suit was dismissed upto High Court. Land measuring 4 kanals is comprised of khasra no. 646 in which there is Dera of Regular Second Appeal No. 1539 of 2009 -2- the plaintiffs and there are also Samadhs of their Gurus. Defendant has no concern with the suit property but he claimed himself to be in possession of 2 kanals land out of 4 kanals of khasra no. 646. Khasra girdawari has been changed in favour of defendant in respect of 2 kanals although plaintiffs are in actual possession thereof. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over 13 kanals 3 marlas and also over 4 kanals land. Plaintiffs also sought declaration that khasra girdawari entry regarding 2 kanals land of khasra no. 646 in favour of the defendant is liable to be set aside being null and void. The defendant raised bar of resjudicata regarding 13 kanals 3 marlas land regarding which suit had already been decided finally. Defendant denied the plaint allegations and pleaded that State Government is owner of 13 kanals 4 marlas land and suit filed by plaintiffs against State has already been dismissed. Khasra girdawari of 2 kanals 8 marlas land out of khasra no. 646 has already been recorded in the name of the defendant and he is in possession of the said land. Plaintiffs have been removed as Mohtmams of the Dera by Governor of Punjab vide order dated 11.9.1996 and Punjab Government has taken possession of the suit property. Defendant is in possession of Mandir Bhai Mul Chand and the Samadhs as Sewadar. Plaintiffs have no concern with the said Mandir and Samadhs. Khasra girdawari has been rightly corrected in favour of defendant. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 14.9.2004 partly decreed the suit declaring that correction of khasra girdawari of 2 kanals of khasra no. 646 in favour of defendant Regular Second Appeal No. 1539 of 2009 -3- vide Rapat dated 6.5.1998 is null and void and the same has been set aside. Suit regarding permanent injunction stands dismissed. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala vide judgment and decree dated 31.1.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that jurisdiction of civil court in the matter of correction of khasra girdawari is barred by section 158(2)(vi) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The contention is of academic interest only because khasra girdawari of the land in question has again been corrected in favour of plaintiffs vide order dated 26.6.2002. Consequently, the instant appeal is redundant and infructuous and appears to have been filed just for the sake of litigation. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that plaintiffs are not owners of the suit property. However, courts below have no where recorded a finding that plaintiffs are not owners of the suit land. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 28, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'