RSA No. 547 of 2004(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 547 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 29, 2009 Rameshwar alias Ramesh Singh ...... Appellant Versus Kawal Singh and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. N.D.Achint, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Rana, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering in land under their exclusive possession of which the parties are joint mortgagees. The following questions have been proposed:- 1) Whether the plea of oral partition can be legally proved without examining the Revenue Officer? 2) Whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned courts below are the result of misreading of evidence and it is also based on fraudulent act of the plaintiff-respondent who tampered with Ex.P2, P3 and P4 which are placed on this file as Annexures P-6 to P-8 and the certified copies thereof are placed on file as Annexures P-3 to P-5? 3) Whether the impugned decree and judgment passed by the RSA No. 547 of 2004(O&M) 2 learned courts below are based on no evidence and are liable to be reversed? It would be seen that all the three questions are essentially questions of fact. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade me that the findings recorded thereon are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of the evidence that the same can be termed as perverse. Learned counsel has argued that even if it is assumed that there was an oral partition among the parties, the same could not be given effect to without it having been reflected in the revenue record and if the parties had approached the revenue authorities, separate Khataunis would have been carved out for each share holder and it would not have been mentioned in the revenue record as 'North' and 'South'. In my opinion there is overwhelming evidence on the record to show that parties are in separate possession. Even the appellant while appearing in the witness box has categorically testified that parties are in separate possession of the land which was originally mortgaged with their grand father. In this view of the matter no infirmity can be found with the judgments of the courts below. Consequently this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 29 , 2009 sunita