RSA NO. 576 OF 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA NO. 576 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION:31.3.2008 Mohinder Singh ...Appellant versus Karamvir and others. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the appellant. -.- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) Defendant No.3 in the suit has preferred the present appeal against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. Respondent No.1 Karamvir filed a suit seeking a decree for declaration and injunction. His claim is that he is the owner in possession of the suit land. He further pleaded that the name of Mohinder Singh shown in column of cultivation in the Fard Jamabandi for the years 1990-91 and 1995-96 has been wrongly entered and needs to be corrected. He also alleged that defendants have no concern with the suit property. The present appellant defendant No.3 in the suit pleaded that Sushila Devi and Kamla Devi are its owners since it came to their share in a family partition and he is the lessee over the suit land under Sushila Devi and Kamla Devi. He claimed his possession since 1991 without any interruption. The appellant relied upon the entry entered in Roznamacha dated 10.4.1991 wherein it has been mentioned that Mohinder Singh-appellant reported to the Patwari that he is cultivating the suit land which was previously cultivated by Rakesh Kumar son of Kashmiri Lal and that Rakesh Kumar was also present and he admitted the possession of Mohinder Singh over the suit property. There is no entry that Mohinder Singh took the suit land on lease from Sushila Devi and Kamla Devi. The trial court held that Rakesh Kumar never came into possession of the suit land, so the recital made in Ex. PW12/A is incorrect. It is also observed by the RSA NO. 576 OF 2007 2 courts below that no evidence is led by the defendant No.3/appellant to prove that the land came to the share of Sushila Devi and Kamla Devi in a family partition and there is nothing on record to prove that the concerned patwari ever made spot inspection to verify the actual physical possession of Mohinder Singh over the suit land before making entry Ex. PW12/A. The appellant has produced no evidence to show that he is the lessee in the suit property nor to prove that Kamla Devi, Sushila Devi, Dalwinder Kumar or Rakesh Kumar ever came into actual physical possession of the suit land. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit of respondent No.1 vide judgment and decree dated 4.10.1999 and appeal preferred by the present appellant before the Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala also failed and came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2006. There is concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. Otherwise also, no substantial question arises in the present appeal. For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 31.3.2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) mk JUDGE