RSA No.2175 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2175 of 2008 Date of Decision:28.01.2009 Gurnam & ors. ....appellants Versus Ram Pal .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.R.K.Gupta,Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below whereby suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed with costs and the appellants were restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and from dispossessing him from the same except in due course of law. As per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff along with his brothers, sisters and uncle Hari Singh was the owner of the suit land and was in actual cultivating possession of the same. The defendants who were strangers and had no right, title or interest in the suit land threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. They tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land on 15.12.1999 but due to timely intervention of the respectables of the village their illegal attempt was foiled. They were requested several times to desist from their illegal design but to no effect. Hence the suit. On notice, defendants appeared and contested this suit by filing written statement. It was alleged that one Amrit s/o Hari Singh had RSA No.2175 of 2008 2 filed a Civil Suit No.180 of 1997 against the defendants qua the suit property and the same was dismissed on 18.12.1999 and this fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff and therefore he was debarred from filing the suit. It was further alleged that the defendants were owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of mutation No.401 decided on 20.05.1997. Ownership and possession of the plaintiff and others was denied. It was alleged that since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property the question of his dispossession does not arise. With these facts, prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 14.03.2006 held that the plaintiff had been able to prove his long possession over the suit property and the defendants were restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and also from dispossessing him from the same except in due course of law and decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.09.2007. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are perverse and result of misreading of evidence and the same are liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants. I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The Courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that from the revenue record, the plaintiff-respondent has been successful in proving his long possession over the suit property. It was further held that revenue authorities could not change the entries of possession of the suit property in the name of any other person without giving due notice to the plaintiff-respondent or without giving any RSA No.2175 of 2008 3 opportunity of hearing to him and since mutation No.401 was passed at his back the same was not binding on his rights. It was also found that respondent and his brothers and sisters have not been dispossessed from the suit land by any competent authority, hence they had every right to retain the possession over the suit land. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to show any perversity in the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises from the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. No merits. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 28.01.2009 neenu