RSA No.4635 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.4635 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 31.08.2010 **** Smt. Sarbati Devi and others . . . . Appellants VS. Ajit Singh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.R.A. Sheoran, Advocate with Mr.Sandeep Jain, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The defendants are in second appeal against judgment and decree of both the Courts below by which suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that entry of the name of defendants as tenants Gair Marusi in the revenue record much less Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 is illegal and is liable to be corrected. The case of the defendants is that they are in possession over 18 kanals of land falling in Rect. No.31 Killa No.4,9 & 12 as Gair Marusi tenants on half batai. It was claimed that entry in the revenue record reflects their status of possession over the property in dispute and is not liable to be corrected as alleged by the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the trial Court and after considering oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, it was concurrently found by both the Courts below that defendants have failed to prove RSA No.4635 of 2009 (O&M) -2- themselves to be in possession over the property in dispute as Gair Marusi tenants. The disputed property falls in Rect. No.31 Killa No. 4, 9 & 12. The defendants have been recorded as tenants in column No.5 of Jamabandi for the year 1993-94 (Ex.P-2) but there is no entry under column No.9 of the said Jamabandi with regard to the payment of rent/batai. It was also observed that the defendants cannot take the benefit of document Ex.P4 copy of rapat No.54 which does not prove that they were in possession of the suit land as Gair Marusi tenants. Rather it was held that there is nothing on record to show that defendants were inducted as tenants, over the suit land, by the plaintiffs as they have also failed to produce receipts of the rent/batai having been paid to the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the appellants has miserably failed to raise any argument worth consideration for this Court to take view different from the view taken by both the Courts below on the basis of appreciation of evidence both oral as well as documentary nor the appellants could raise any substantial question of law as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the appellants have only submitted that there is a misreading of documents on record which even otherwise could not have been proved. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and as such the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) AUGUST 31, 2010 JUDGE Vivek