IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A.No.159 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:16.11.2010 Bhag Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Swaran Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. B.S. Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D.S. Chanan, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit of the plaintiffs- respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering into possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land forcibly and illegally except in due course of law was decreed. In the suit, the plaintiffs- respondents averred that they were owners and in peaceful possession of the suit land measuring 3 kanal 16 marlas bearing khasra No.41/1/1 situated at Village Sohal Tehsil and District Taran Taran as per jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 which was purchased from defendant Sadhu Singh vide registered sale deed dated 22.2.1996. Since the defendants were threatening to interfere into their peaceful possession over the suit land, the necessity arose to file the present suit. Upon notice, the appellants filed written statement stating that R.S.A.No.159 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Sadhu Singh never sold the suit land to the plaintiffs- respondents and the sale deed dated 22.2.1996 was a forged and fictitious document. It was further stated that plaintiffs never came in possession of the suit land and defendant No.4 was owner of the suit land only to the extent of 1/5th share and khewat was joint. Other material averments of the plaint was denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed. Replication was filed to the written statement of defendants vide which the averments of written statement were denied and that of plaint were asserted to be correct. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the plaintiffs- respondents were able to prove their possession over the suit property at the time of filing of the suit and since the suit was only for permanent injunction and title was not involved, the defendants had no right to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally, forcibly from any part of the suit property. Still not satisfied, the defendants have filed the instant appeal submitting that the following substantial questions of law arises in this appeal:- a) Whether the courts below have appreciated the revenue record properly before decreeing the suit of the plaintiff? b) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs can be decreed without tallying the revenue record as well as of sale deed on the basis of which they claimed the right upon the suit land? At the time of motion hearing, contention was raised that the suit property does not relate to the land as described in the sale deed and thus the pleadings of the suit were vague. R.S.A.No.159 of 2009 (O&M) -3- I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decrees. It is useful to refer to the observations of the lower appellate court which reads as follows: “15. The suit land is represented by khasra no.41//1/1 (3 Kanals 16 marlas) khewat no.161 and khatoni no.552 as per jamabandi of the year 2001-2002. The plaintiffs purchased 3 kanals 15 marlas of land out of khasra no.41//1 from Sadhu Singh one of the co-sharers and this sale deed is proved as Ex.P1 and its endorsement is Ex.P2 and the sale deed is dated 22.2.96. On the basis of this sale deed, mutation no.1028 was entered and sanctioned in the name of plaintiffs namely Swaran Singh, Sukhwinder Singh and Sakkattar Singh and this mutation is mentioned on the page of sale deed Ex.P1. Certified copy of the mutation is available on record, although the same is not exhibited. This certified copy of mutation no.1028 depicts that when sale deed dated 22.2.96, which is Ex.P1, as given effect in the revenue record then khasra no.41//1/1 (3 kanals 16 marlas) was carved out. Although the sale deed was relating to the area of 3 kanals 15 marlas and as per revenue rules, the friction of one karam is not shown in the revenue record and hence, this area is shown as 3 kanals 16 marlas, but actually, sale deed is relating to 3 kanals 15 marlas and further revenue record, which are from Ex.P3, Ex.P4, Ex.P5, Ex.P6, Ex.P7, Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P10, Ex.P11, R.S.A.No.159 of 2009 (O&M) -4- show the possession of plaintiffs over the suit property bearing khasra no.41//1/1 (3 kanals 16 marlas) as vendees from Sadhu Singh. There is an entry of mutation of partition bearing sr.no.1532 as is depicted in Ex.P11 as copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-02 and as per this partition mutation, the land, in dispute, came to the share of plaintiffs. Even revenue record placed on record by defendants, which is Ex.DA, Ex.DB also depicts the possession of the plaintiffs. So, coupled with the oral evidence and supported by documentary evidence, which is revenue record, plaintiffs have been able to prove their possession over the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. This is only a suit for permanent injunction and title is not involved and Sadhu Singh, vendor of the plaintiffs can claim 1 marla of land from the plaintiffs or can claim its price in due process of law, but said Sadhu Singh has no right to dispossess the plaintiffs illegally and forcibly from any part of the suit property. So findings of ld. Trial court qua the possession of plaintiffs over the suit property at the time of filing of suit are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference of this court.” From the perusal of the aforesaid, it is clearly made out that Sadhu Singh defendant No.4 had sold the suit property vide sale deed Ex.P1 which stood proved on the record and to give effect to the said sale deed R.S.A.No.159 of 2009 (O&M) -5- khasra No.41/1/1 (3-16) was carved out. It was further established on the record that vide entry of mutation of partition bearing Sr. No.1532 as depicted in Ex.P11, the land in dispute had come to the share of plaintiffs. Not only this, from the other record which is available on the file, possession of the plaintiff is also proved on record of the case. In view of the aforesaid overwhelming evidence on record, the argument raised by counsel for the appellants at the time of motion hearing that the suit property is not connected with the sale deed is without any substance. In fact identity of the property in dispute was never challenged by the appellant in their pleadings. No other point was urged. For the reasons afore-mentioned, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. November 16, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE