RSA No.1815 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1815 of 2005 Decided on : 23-04-2009 Baljeet Singh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Virender Chauhan ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J This is defendants' second appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Trial Court dated 16.2.2001 and that of the First Appellate Court dated 22.12.2004. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants-appellants seeking to restrain them from interfering in his peaceful possession. It was pleaded that the Punjab Wakf Board is the owner of the suit property and the plaintiff-respondent is tenant on the same since 16.1.1991 at the rent of Rs.175/- per month and that the appellants were trying to interfere in his possession without any right, title or interest. The appellants-defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the suit was a counter blast to a suit which defendant no.1 had already filed against one Basant Lal, Kalttar and Jagdish which was pending in the Trial Court at Kaithal. It is pleaded that all the above three named persons are in RSA No.1815 of 2005 2 collusion with each other and wanted to dispossess the defendants who are in possession of the suit property. The ownership of the Punjab Wakf Board was denied and the tenancy of the plaintiff-respondent on the suit property was also denied. The allotment letter dated 16.1.1991 on the basis of which plaintiff-respondent pleaded tenancy was said to be false and bogus. It it pleaded that the appellants had raised construction on the suit property and were in possession and that the plaintiff-respondent had no concern with the same. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land as tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board?OPP. 2. If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the defendants are trying to dispossess him from the suit land and encroached upon the gali illegally?OPP. 3. Whether the suit is malafide as alleged in para no.1 of the written statement?OPP. 4. Relief. Both the Courts concluded that the plaintiff-respondent was a tenant on the suit property and that the Punjab Wakf Board was the owner of the same. It was further held that the plaintiff-respondent was in possession as a tenant and the defendants had no concern with the same and therefore, went on to decree the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, which has resulted in filing of the present regular second appeal. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the cogent evidence has been ignored by the Courts below and the findings recorded by both the Courts below are accordingly perverse. It was RSA No.1815 of 2005 3 pleaded that Ex. D1 which is a decree in favour of the appellants has been totally ignored by both the Courts below and it was pleaded that in this decree which was against the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff- respondent, the suit of Kalyan Singh was decreed and therefore, this was binding and the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that the findings recorded by both the Courts below cannot be termed to be erroneous. It is contended that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that the Punjab Wakf Board was the owner of the property and that by virtue of the document (allotment letter dated 16.1.1991) the tenancy had been created in his favour and thereafter, he continued to be in possession. He also referred to the Local Commissioner report who was appointed during the course of proceedings who established the identity of the property and also established the possession of the plaintiff-respondent while categorically discarding the possession of the appellants. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments. The plaintiff-respondent has produced both oral and documentary evidence to show that the property is owned by the Punjab Wakf Board and that he is the tenant thereon. PW6 Sameen Ahmed from Punjab Wakf Board appeared and admitted that plot in khasra no 328 is owned by the Punjab Wakf Board and Ex.P-14 is a notification to that effect which is sufficient indicator of the property being the Punjab Wakf property. Revenue record and consequent entries as reflected in Ex.P-36, 38, 39 and 40 also established the property to be Punjab Wakf Board. All these cogent pieces of evidence could not have been ignored by both the RSA No.1815 of 2005 4 Courts below. P-17 is the statement of Basant Lal and Tarsem Lal which provided that they are the Patedars on the land and they have relinquished the possession over the suit property by Ex.P-18 an affidavit to that effect. P-19 is the allotment letter in favour of the Punjab Wakf Board. Report of the Local Commissioner, Ex.P-27 shows that there is boundary of the plot in dispute and the possession of the plaintiff-respondent was established on the spot. The appellants could not off-set all this material evidence by producing any evidence in their favour. The only decree on which reliance has been placed was not sufficient to establish their possession. Even otherwise it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent that the suit which led to the passing of the decree upon which the appellants has placed reliance was initiated on 20.11.1993 wherein the instant suit was filed on 4.1.1993. The decree was passed on 1.12.1993 barely 10 days thereafter and Rasal Singh who appeared as DW2 did not contest the suit implying thereby that it was a fraudulent decree. In any eventuality, the plaintiff-respondent who had come to the Court has produced cogent and material evidence on record to establish his possession as a tenant under the Punjab Wakf Board. Both the Courts have recorded concurrent and consistent findings of fact against the appellants which cannot be termed to be erroneous so as to warrant interference in a regular second appeal. No substantial question of law has been shown to have arisen in the present appeal and the same being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. April 23, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge