Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 Date of decision: 13.08.2009 Nafe Singh son of Maya Chand, r/o village Pinana, Tehsil and District Sonipat. ..... Appellant. Versus Pale Ram alias Raj Pal son of Maya Chand, r/o village Pinana, Tehsil and District Sonipat. ..... Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Sameer Rathore,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Sham Sunder, J. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -2- Sonipat, vide which it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the judgment and decree dated 01.05.2006, rendered by the Court of District Judge, Sonipat,vide which it dismissed the appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the land measuring 48 kanals 16 marlas, situated, in the revenue estate of village Pinana, Tehsil and District Sonipat, as fully detailed in para no.1 of the plaint, was the ownership of Shamlat Pana Lalan Hasab Rasad Rakba. Nafe Singh, plaintiff, (now appellant) was in cultivating possession of 23 kanals 18 marlas of land, out of the suit land, comprising rectangle no.92//5, 7, 15, 14/2 & 16. It was stated that Pale alias Rajpal, defendant, (now respondent) got the revenue entries incorporated, in respect of possession of land measuring 11 kanals 16 marlas comprising killa Nos. 92//15 (7-12), 16 (3-0), 14/2(1-4) in his favour, wrongly on 20.03.1986. Those entries continued in Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -3- the jamabandies for the years 1986-87 to 1996-97. The plaintiff came to know about the wrong entries of possession in respect of the land in the month of November, 1998. Thereafter, he requested the defendant to get the entries, aforesaid, corrected in his favour, but to no avail. Ultimately, a suit for declaration for correction of entries in the name of the plaintiff, showing him to be in possession of the land, in question, was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and contested the suit, by way of filing written statement, wherein, it was admitted that the land, in question, was the ownership of Shamlat Panna Lallan Hasab Rasad Rakba. It was denied that the plaintiff was in possession of the land measuring 23 kanals 18 marlas, but, on the other hand, it was stated that the plaintiff was in actual physical possession of the land measuring 22 kanals 12 marlas comprising rectangle Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -4- no.92, killa no.4 (8-0), 5(7-12), 7 Min (7-0). It was further stated that the defendant was in cultivating possession of the land measuring 26 kanals 4 marlas comprising rectangle no.92, Killa Nos. 6 (7-12), 7 min (1-0), 14/2(2-8), 15(7-12) and 16(7-12). It was further stated that the entries, in the revenue record, in favour of the defendant showing him to be in possession, of the land, in question, had been correctly made. It was further stated that the plaintiff wrongly moved an application for correction of the Khasra girdawari on 22.12.1998, for the period of Kharif, 1997, onwards, in the Court of Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Sonipat, and obtained the order, in his favour, in collusion with the Revenue Officer. It was further stated that the appeal, which was filed by the defendant, against that order, was accepted. The remaining averments were denied, being wrong. Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -5- 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues, were struck by the trial Court:- “1- Whether the plaintiff is in cultivating possession rectangle and killa no.92/15(7-12), 16(3-0), 14/2(1-4) ?OPP 2- Whether this suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fees and jurisdiction ?OPD 3- Whether the plaintiff has got any cause of action to file the present suit ?OPD 4- Relief.” 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the trial Court dismissed the suit. 6. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.2005, passed by the trial Court, appellant- plaintiff filed an appeal in the Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -6- Appellate Court, at Sonipat, which vide its judgment and decree dated 01.05.2006, dismissed the same. 7. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed, by the appellant/ plaintiff. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the plaintiff produced oral evidence to prove that he was in physical possession of the land, in respect whereof, the suit was filed. He further submitted that the entries showing the defendant in cultivating possession of the same, had been wrongly made in the revenue record. He further submitted that the Courts below mis-read and mis- appreciated the evidence, resulting into recording of perverse findings, leading to the dismissal of the suit illegally. He Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -7- further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Courts below, after due scrutiny of the documentary and oral evidence, came to the conclusion, that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in respect whereof, the suit was filed. On the other hand, the defendant was in possession thereof. He further submitted that the Courts below were right in holding that the entries showing the defendant, in possession of the land, in question, had been rightly made by the revenue authorities. He further submitted that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -8- in my considered opinion,the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention, was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court, in interfering with the judgments Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -9- of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. A specific claim of the plaintiff was that he was in possession of the land measuring 11 kanals 16 marlas comprising killa Nos. 92//15 (7-12), 16 (3-0), 14/2 (1-4) at the time of institution of the suit, but the entries in the revenue record showing the defendant, to be in cultivating possession, had been wrongly made by the revenue authorities, in connivance with him. The oral evidence, produced by the plaintiff, in the shape of the statements of Ranbir, PW-2 and Dharambir, PW-3, could not be taken into consideration, especially in view of the documentary evidence in the shape of revenue record, produced by the defendant. In jamabandi, Ex.D-3, relating to the year 1996-97, the plaintiff had been recorded to be in possession of the land measuring 22 kanals 12 marlas comprising rectangle no.92 killa nos. 4,5, & 7 and Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -10- the defendant was recorded to be in possession of land measuring 26 kanals 4 marlas comprising rectangle no.92 Killa Nos. 6,7 Min, 14-2, 15 and 16. From Ex.D-1, jamabandi for the year 1986-87, it was evident that the plaintiff and the defendant had partitioned the land under their possession for cultivation before the preparation of the said Jamabandi. As per the said jamabandi, the defendant was recorded to be in possession of 30 kanals 4 marlas, which included the land measuring 4 kanals comprising Rectangle No.91, Killa No.21/1 in addition to the land measuring 26 kanals 4 marlas comprising Killa Nos.6,7, 14/2, 15 and 16 of rectangle no.92. These entries continued upto the preparation of jambandi, relating to the year 1991-92, copy whereof Ex.D2. Similar entries were reflected in the jamabandi for the year 1996-97, copy whereof Ex.D3. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -11- the Courts below, that the plaintiff was not in possession of the land, in respect whereof, the suit was filed by him, but, on the other hand, the defendant was shown to be in cultivating possession thereof; that the entries showing the defendant in cultivating possession of the land, in question, had been correctly made by the revenue authorities; that Ex.P-8, the order dated 26.02.2005, passed by this Court, in some other case, did not show that the plaintiff was in possession of the land, in dispute, at the time of institution of the suit; and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the declaration prayed for, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and, thus, warrant no interference. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without Regular Second Appeal No.3518 of 2006 -12- merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 12. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail and the same stands dismissed with costs. ( Sham Sunder ) August 13, 2009 Judge dinesh