Regular Second Appeal No. 1650 of 2006 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : January 18, 2008 Munshi Singh Chauhan and others ....Appellants versus Raghbir Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for the appellants Mr. S.K.Garg, Advocate, for respondent Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) This regular second appeal by defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') is directed against judgment and decree dated 29.4.2003 whereby a civil suit for possession as well as for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, as detailed in the plaint, was decreed. Thereafter, the first appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed with costs vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.1.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge. Without going into any details, suffice it to say that the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') had filed a suit for possession as Regular Second Appeal No. 1650 of 2006 (O&M) -2- well as for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property as detailed in the decree sheet drawn by the learned trial court. In fact, the suit property is situated within the Abadi Deh i.e. Lal Dora of village Devsar, District Bhiwani and as such the only noticeable point of argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that since the property is situated within the Abadi Deh, so there is no record of ownership in respect thereof and as such, the respondent has been wrongly held to be the owner of the suit property simply on the basis of a writing dated 18.1.1998 (i.e. executed before filing the suit) Ex. P2 which was written in favour of the respondent by the Gram Panchayat, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellants. He further argued that the writing Ex. P2 even otherwise is also not admissible. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has repelled the aforesaid points of argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record and writing Ex. P2 in this case. It is pertinent to mention here that the writing Ex. P2 was executed in the presence of Sarpanch, Ex-sarpanch, Members of Panchayat and other respectables of the village. This document was earlier marked as 'A' on the file of the trial court. However, at the time of recording the statement of PW3 Bir Singh, it was exhibited as Ex. P2. It is relevant to Regular Second Appeal No. 1650 of 2006 (O&M) -3- mention here that when this writing was exhibited before the trial court, no objection was raised on behalf of the appellants regarding the mode of proof of the said document. A perusal of this document also goes a long way to show that both the parties were present before the Gram Panchayat and after hearing them, the Gram Panchayat had come to the conclusion that it is the respondent who was earlier owner in possession of the suit property since his fore-fathers. In the given facts and circumstances, the admissibility of the contents of the aforesaid document which was reduced into writing before the Gram Panchayat cannot be ignored. Further, it is also apparent that both the courts below have given concurrent findings in favour of the respondent regarding the ownership of the suit property. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned judgments and decrees, this Court does not find any perversity in any of the findings arrived at by the courts below. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants also could not make out any substantial question of law involved in this appeal for consideration of this Court. Hence, the regular second appeal is hereby dismissed at the motion stage. ( Pritam Pal ) January 18, 2008 Judge 'dalbir'