RSA No.26 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.26 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21 - 9 - 2011 Madan ....Appellant v. Raj Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by one of the legal representatives of defendant No.3 to the suit. Briefly stated, the plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit for permanent injunction praying that defendants be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the suit land and dispossessing him forcibly therefrom. It was pleaded in the suit that the plaintiff along with Ram Kishan and one Jhangi Ram were recorded owners of agricultural land measuring 2 Kanal 16 Marlas, detail and description of which has been given in head note of the plaint. It was stated by the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit land since 1964-65 and earlier thereto his fore-fathers held the same. They were gair marusi tenants on payment of 1/3rd of the RSA No.26 of 2011 (O&M) [2] produce. A joint written statement was filed by defendants No.1,3 and 4. Defendant No.2 was given up by the plaintiff. In the written statement filed, possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was denied. They further denied that they were receiving any share of the produce to the extent of 1/3rd. The core issue formulated by the trial Court for consideration was as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction, as prayed for. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW1 and examined Bhima as PW2. He also placed on record jamabandies commencing from the year 1967-68 to 2002-03. The present appellant-defendant appeared as DW1 and examined Raj Kumar as DW2 and Pushpa as DW3. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is completely proved and hence he was entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Having held the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property, the defendants were restrained from interfering in possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing him forcibly, except in due course of law. This finding has been affirmed by the lower Appellate Court. Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has failed to advance any meaningful argument to formulate any contrary opinion. The Courts below have placed reliance on the revenue record to return the concurrent findings of fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. RSA No.26 of 2011 (O&M) [3] I have perused the grounds of appeal also. The main argument pressed therein is that non payment of rent or receipt thereof entitles the defendants to dispossess the plaintiff. It has been constantly held by the Courts below that in a suit for permanent injunction, only possession is to be determined and taken into consideration. Furthermore, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rame Gowda (D) by LRs v. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs and another, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 519 that a person in settled possession of the property is entitled to injunction and cannot be dispossessed forcibly, except in due course of law. For non payment of rent, a right vests in the owner to seek eviction of the person who is in un- authorised possession. Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments has failed to formulate any question of law, much less the substantial one for adjudication, therefore, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 21, 2011. JUDGE RC