RSA No.1667 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1667 of 2010 Date of decision: July 7, 2011. Gram Panchayat Ismailabad ... Appellant(s) v. Kabal Singh ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): This is defendant's regular second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact given by both the courts below in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-appellant from interfering into his peaceful possession over the land in dispute. He pleaded that he is in possession of land measuring 8 kanals 1 marla, description of which was given in para 1 of the plaint. It was further pleaded that this land had been allotted to him as a tenant by Punjab Wakf Board. In para 2 of the plaint it has been specifically stated that the plaintiff has been paying rent to the Board regularly and he is in peaceful possession. It is further stated that since the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is inimical to him, he is taking active steps to dispossess the plaintiff. RSA No.1667 of 2010 -: 2 :- In the written statement filed by appellant, Gram Panchayat stated that it had already filed a suit and the same is fixed in the court of Sub Judge, Kurukshetra for 14.3.1996. The possession of the plaintiff was also denied and controverted by the appellant-defendant Gram Panchayat. On completion of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possesxsion of the land in dispute on the grounds mentioned in the plaint, if so to what effect? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit? OPD 4. Wjhether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD 5. Relief. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and tendered various documents. In defence, Gram Panchayat examined Joginder Kaushal as DW1 and Mohan Lal as DW2. The Gram Panchayat also placed on record various documents which were exhibited. The trial court appreciated the evidence and held that the entire revenue record relied upon by the parties depicts that the suit property is gair mumkin graveyard of Muslims; the ownership of which vests in the Panchayat, however, in column of cultivation, the suit land is in possession of the plaintiff as lessee under the Punjab Wakf Board. The court also relied upon receipts Ex.P9 to P11 which reveal that the plaintiff has been paying the rent to the Board. According to Khasra Girdawri Ex.P2, P7 and P8, possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was depicted under the Wakf Board. The court further RSA No.1667 of 2010 -: 3 :- held that the witnesses of Gram Panchayat DW1 Joginder Kaushal and DW2 Mohan Lal Sarpanch have produced no clinching evidence and the bald oral assertion made by them is not worth reliance. The court further held that the written statement was not signed by the Sarpanch or any other authorized person of the Sarpanch. Thus, issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Since onus qua issues No.2 to 4 was upon the defendant who failed to prove the same, therefore, the same were decided against the defendants. The lower appellate court concurred with the above said findings of the learned lower court rendered vide its judgment and decree dated 5.9.2007 and dismissed the appeal with costs. Counsel for the appellant has stated that the application for additional evidence filed by the appellant before the lower appellate court was wrongly dismissed. A perusal of the application for leading additional evidence filed before the lower appellate court shows that the appellant has relied upon the report of Naib Tehsildar to the effect that the appellant is the owner of the property. There is no dispute qua this fact. The courts below have already held the Gram Panchayat to be owner of the property in dispute but at the same time the courts maintained the possession of the defendant-appellant relying upon the entry in the revenue record where the plaintiff has been reflected in the column of possession of the suit land under the Wakf Board. A perusal of the judgments of both the courts below shows that the oral as well as documentary evidence has been scrutinized, evaluated and analyzed by them. This Court in Regular Second Appeal shall not re- RSA No.1667 of 2010 -: 4 :- appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence, especially when no question of law much less the substantial one arises for consideration of this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 7, 2011. Judge kadyan