Regular Second Appeal No. 1743 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 1743 of 2011 Date of Decision: 11.7.2011 Jeet Singh and Others …Appellant Versus M/s Horizon Agro Chem Limited …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Krishan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) This regular second appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs, who failed in both the Courts below. The plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from dispossessing them forcibly and illegally and it should not interfere in their peaceful possession over the suit land measuring 91 bighas 7 biswas over which they were tenant. The plaintiffs' case is that the suit land belongs to the Gram Panchayat but the plaintiffs are in its possession since 1990-91. They made it cultivable and are cultivating the same as tenant gair marusi on chakota at the rate of ` 12,600 per year for the whole land. Now, when the Panchayat has sold the land to the defendant for installation of a Sugar Mill. A dispute qua possession arose and thus filed the suit. Regular Second Appeal No. 1743 of 2011 2 On notice, the defendant appeared and filed a written statement wherein it was stated that the suit land was purchased vide registered sale deed No. 732 dated 29.6.1995. It denied the possession as tenants of the plaintiffs and claimed to be of the Seller-Gram Panchayat. Besides this, preliminary objection regarding maintainability, locus standi, concealment of true facts etc. were raised. After conclusion of the proceedings, the trial Court has formulated the following issues:- “1) Whether the plaintiffs are Gair Marusi tenants in the suit land as prayed for, if so its effect? OPP 2) Whether the defendant is exclusive owner in possession of the suit land, if so, its effect? OPD 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed as such? OPD 4) Relief” The plaintiffs examined four witnesses and tendered into evidence the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The defendant, in all, examined six witnesses and also tendered into evidence the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Issue No.1 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs and issue No.2 in favour of the defendant. Issue No.3 was not pressed by the defendant as onus was upon it. Ultimately, the ownership and possession of the defendant was held exclusive and the suit was Regular Second Appeal No. 1743 of 2011 3 dismissed with costs. Feeling dissatisfied with the result, the appellants/plaintiffs went in appeal but failed. They could not persuade the lower Appellate Court to differ with the findings. The case law cited by the appellants were considered. It concurred with the same and dismissed their appeal. Both the Courts below gave the following concurrent findings of fact: a) From the evidence adduced by the parties, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession of the suit land on year to year basis. b) It was further held that from a perusal of a copy of khasra girdawari Ex.P4 w.e.f. Kharif crop 1995 to kharif crop 1999, it was apparent that the plaintiffs have not been cultivating the land as the same has been shown to be vacant. c) Both the Courts below further held that from the evidence, it can be safely inferred that the plaintiffs have surrendered possession of the suit land to the Gram Panchayat and thereafter, the Gram Panchayat executed the sale deed and handed over possession of the suit land to the defendant. d) Both the Courts below further held that plaintiffs Satpal and Karnail Singh admitted that they have not paid any rent after April 1995. This was taken as circumstance to hold that relationship of the landlord and tenant no longer existed between the plaintiffs Regular Second Appeal No. 1743 of 2011 4 and the Gram Panchayat, who sold the land to the defendant. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that both the Courts below have misread the evidence and the conclusions formulated are contrary to the evidence led by the plaintiffs. It is stated that as from the revenue record, it is discernible that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in second appeal, this Court cannot re-appreciate and re- evaluate the evidence. Mere an entry in the revenue record is not sufficient especially when both the Courts below have taken the totality of the evidence into consideration and held that in the khasra girdawaries after 1995 the suit land was shown as vacant and at the time of execution of sale deed, the possession was given to the defendant. Furthermore, both the Courts below took into consideration the fact that after April 1995, no rent was paid by the tenants/plaintiffs. Hence, no substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 11, 2011 “DK”