-1- Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: March 01, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2011 (O&M). Kitabo Devi and others ... Appellants VERSUS Naresh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the appellants. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.2299-C of 2011. For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and the delay of 27 days in filing this appeal is condoned. Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2011 (O&M). Defendants-appellants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts -2- Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2011 (O&M). below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed to the effect that the defendants-appellants were restrained from raising hurried construction and interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs-respondents over the suit land/ plot measuring 0 Kanal 8 Marlas, described in para No.2 of the plaint. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgments I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It could not be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The case of the plaintiffs-respondents before the Courts below was that they were owners in possession of the plot in dispute through their forefathers and that they had been using the same for tethering their cattle and storing fuel etc. On the other hand, the defendants-appellants took the stand before the Courts below that the revenue entries standing in the name of the plaintiffs-respondents were fabricated, null and void, collusive and not bindings on the rights of the defendants-appellants, whose predecessor-in-interest, namely, Pirthi had purchased the plot in dispute from Smt.Kamla widow of Sobha son of Shri Chand (plaintiff-respondent No.2) for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- on 20.11.1984 after paying the entire sale consideration against proper agreement and receipt and possession of the plot in dispute was also delivered to Pirthi. In -3- Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2011 (O&M). order to prove their ownership and possession over the plot in dispute, the plaintiffs placed on record jamabandi for the year 1997-98, which is Exhibit P.1. In this Jamabandi, Smt. Rukmani (plaintiff-respondent No.4) daughter of Shri Chand is recorded owner in possession of the plot in dispute to the extent of ½ share and plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 along with others have been recorded as owners in equal shares to the extent of ½ share of the plot in dispute. Presumption of truth always attaches to the Jamabandies. However, claim of the defendants-appellants is that Smt.Kamla widow of Sobha son of Shri Chand (plaintiff-respondent No.2) had sold the plot in dispute to the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants, namely, Pirthi for a total sale consideration of Rs.2,000/- on 20.11.1984. The defendants produced on record `Tehrir' (Exhibit D.W.1/C) allegedly executed by Smt.Kamla (plaintiff-respondent No.2) in favour of Pirthi, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants-appellants. However, in the said `Tehrir' (Exhibit D.W.1/C), the number of plot has not been mentioned. Thus, it is not clear from `Tehrir' (Exhibit D.W.1/C) as to which plot had been sold by plaintiff-respondent No.2 Smt. Kamla in favour of Pirthi. Besides, this `Tehrir' (Exhibit D.W.1/C) has no validity in the eyes of law as vide this `Tehrir' a plot of the value of more than Rs.100/- was sold by Smt. Kamla to Pirthi. Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act requires that a property of the value of more than Rs.100/- cannot be transferred without a registered document. Admittedly, `Tehrir' (Exhibit D.W.1/C) is not a registered document. Obviously, -4- Regular Second Appeal No. 829 of 2011 (O&M). this document i.e `Tehrir' (Exhibit D.W.1/C) cannot be looked into evidence and has to be ignored. If it is so, the case of the defendants-appellants is without any evidence on record and the revenue entries with regard to the plot in dispute in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents remain unrebutted. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. ( MOHINDER PAL ) March 01, 2011. JUDGE ak